This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-06-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The findings of the appellate court, as fully substantiated by the records, showed that the petitioner was equally guilty of negligence, thus,[17] In the first place, the remedy of appeal was lost through the fault of petitioner, particularly of his counsel. Thus, the first requisite [abovecited] is clearly not satisfied here. Besides, it is incredible that petitioner did not bother to check the status of his case with his lawyer in spite that he stood to lose his alleged property on which he was operating his business. He therefore could not complain of the negligence of his counsel in not informing him of the outcome of the case when he himself did not bother to check with his counsel or to find out the status of his case. It is the duty of a party-litigant to be in contact with this counsel from time to time in order to be informed of the progress of his case. (Underscoring ours.) Both the petitioner and his former counsel offered no justification why the notice of appeal was filed eleven days beyond the reglementary period. Likewise, the petitioner failed to explain why he only learned of the dismissal of his case five months later. Involving as it did the loss of the property where both his residence and business establishment are built, no less than staunch vigilance in safeguarding his rights was expected from the petitioner. | |||||