You are bound by your lawyer's actions

It is a well-settled principle in this jurisdiction that a client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of the case and cannot be heard· to complain that the result might have been different had he proceeded differently.[1] Every counsel has the implied authority to do all acts which are necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client. And, any act performed by counsel within the scope of his general and implied authority is, in the eyes of law, regarded as the act of the client himself and consequently, the mistake or negligence of the client's counsel may result in the rendition of unfavorable judgment against him.[2] To rule otherwise would result to a situation that every defeated party, in order to salvage his case, would just have to claim neglect or mistake on the part of his counsel as a ground for reversing an adverse judgment. There would be no end to litigation if this were allowed as every shortcoming of counsel could be the subject of challenge of his client through another counsel who, if he is also found wanting, would likewise be disowned by the same client through another counsel, and so on ad infinitum. This would render court proceedings indefinite, tentative and subject to reopening at any time by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel.[3]

In Juani v. Alarcon,[4] the Supreme Court struck down the ploy of the petitioner to prolong the court process by unduly harping on his counsel's negligence to evade a valid obligation, thus:
Clearly, this is an instance where the due process routine vigorously pursued by Bienvenido Juani and his successor-in-interest is but a clear-cut afterthought meant to delay the settlement of uncomplicated legal dispute. Aside from clogging the court dockets, the strategy is deplorably a common curse resorted to by losing litigants in the hope of evading manifest obligations. This Court will ever be vigilant to nip [in] the bud any dilatory maneuver calculated to defeat or frustrate the ends of justice, fair play and the prompt implementation of final and executory judgments.

Truly, a litigant bears the responsibility to monitor the status of his case, for no prudent party leaves the fate of his case entirely in the hands of his lawyer. It is the client's duty to be in contact with his lawyer from time to time in order to be informed of the progress and developments of his case; hence, to merely rely on the bare reassurance of his lawyer that everything is being taken care of is not enough.[5] Where the party failed to act with prudence and diligence, its plea that it was not accorded the right to due process cannot elicit this court's approval or even sympathy.[6]

When a party lost the right to appeal on account of his own and his counsel's negligence, and, as a result of which, a judgment has attained. finality, such party cannot thereafter unduly burden the courts by endlessly pursuing the due process routine in an effort to frustrate the prompt implementation of final and executory judgment. 

Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final the issue or the cause involved therein should be laid to rest. This doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental consideration of public policy and sound practice. In fact, nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact and law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land.[7] Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case by the execution and satisfaction of the judgment, which is the "life of the law."[8] To frustrate it by dilatory scheme on the part of the losing party is to frustrate all efforts, time and expenditure of the courts. It is in the best interest of justice that this court write finis to this litigation.[9]

[1] Juani v. Alarcon, 532 Phil. 585, 603 (2006).

[2] Id.

[3] Id. at 603-604.

[4] Id. at 602.

[5] Bejarasco, Jr., v. People, 656 Phil. 337, 340 (2011).

[6] GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc., v. Principe, supra note 20 at 186.

[7] Juani v. Alarcon, supra note 23 at 604.

[8] De Leon v. Public Estates Authority, et al., 640 Phil. 594, 611-612 (2010).

[9] Id. at 612.