This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-06-21 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioners lay the blame for the circumstance they are in on their counsel's negligence. We disagree. Records show that each time the pre-trial conference of the case was set, separate notices were sent to them and their counsel. They separately received a copy of the Order of March 8, 1993 on May 14, 1993. The least that petitioners could have done was to coordinate with their counsel but they chose to do nothing after receiving the Order. Their failure to take any step for one (1) year and seven (7) months shows their lack of interest and that they themselves do not believe in their cause of action. We have held that a party cannot blame his counsel when he himself was guilty of neglect;[4] and that the laws aid the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights. Vigilantibus sed non dormientibus jura subveniunt.[5] | |||||