see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/180325.pdf
"x x x.
Although the petition is an appeal from the Resolution of the CA issued on May 24, 2007, refusing to recall its entry of judgment, and its Resolution dated October 19, 2007, denying reconsideration of the earlier resolution, petitioner is actually making a vain attempt to reopen a case that has long been final and executory. The Court frowns upon such conduct of litigants and their lawyers.
The Court strikes down the argument that the CA Decision in CAG.R. CV No. 58817 did not attain finality because petitioner's counsel, who died while the case was pending before the CA, was unable to receive a copy thereof. The CA was correct in ruling that there is no extraordinary
circumstance in this case that would merit a recall of the entry of judgment
to reopen the case. The reason given by petitioner, that its former counsel
had died before the CA Decision was promulgated, hence, it was not
properly notified of the judgment, is too tenuous to be given serious
consideration. In Mojar, et al. v. Agro Commercial Security Service Agency,
Inc.,17 the Court explained that it is the party's duty to inform the court of its counsel's demise, and failure to apprise the court of such fact shall be
considered negligence on the part of said party. Expounding further, the
Court stated:
x x x It is not the duty of the courts to inquire, during the progress of a case, whether the law firm or partnership representing one of the litigants
continues to exist lawfully, whether the partners are still alive, or whether
its associates are still connected with the firm.
x x x They cannot pass the blame to the court, which is not tasked to
monitor the changes in the circumstances of the parties and their counsel.
x x x x
In Ampo v. Court of Appeals, this Court explained the vigilance that must be exercised by a party:
x x x x
Litigants who are represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their cases. Relief will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence. The circumstances of this case plainly show that petitioner only has himself to blame. Neither can he invoke due process. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy. Where a party, such as petitioner, was afforded this opportunity to participate but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process. If said opportunity is not availed
of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee.
Thus, for failure of petitioner to notify the CA of the death of its counsel of record and have said counsel substituted, then service of the CA
Decision at the place or law office designated by its counsel of record as his
address, is sufficient notice. The case then became final and executory
when no motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed within the
reglementary period therefor.
x x x."
