5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Hence, the instant petition based on the following grounds: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE PETITIONER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING [THAT] PETITIONER SHOULD NOT BE BOUND BY THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF ATTY. MAYO IN NOT INFORMING HER ABOUT HIS RECEIPT OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ADVERSE TO HER ON MAY 26, 2009 OR IN NOT FILING A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS AND INTEREST OF THE PETITIONER[12] The petition lacks merit. The Court is not persuaded by petitioner's contention that she should not be bound by her counsel's gross neglect of duty in not informing her of the adverse decision of the CA. The Court agrees with the observation of the CA that petitioner is nor entirely blameless as he was not vigilant in monitoring the progress of her case. Evidence of her negligence is the fact that she did not make any effort to personally follow up her appeal with her counsel. Instead, she merely relied on a certain Conrad Lucero, the person who referred her to her counsel, regarding updates of her appeal with the CA. In this respect, the Court's ruling in Bejarasco, Jr. v. People[13] is instructive, to wit: The general rule is that a client is bound by the counsel's acts, including even mistakes in the realm of procedural technique. The rationale for the rule is that a counsel, once retained, holds the implied authority to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client, such that any act or omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is regarded in the eyes of the law, as the act or omission of the client himself. A recognized exception to the rule is when the reckless or gross negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due process of law. For the exception to apply, however, the gross negligence should not be accompanied by the client's own negligence or malice, considering that the client has the duty to be vigilant in respect of his interests by keeping up-to-date on the status of the case. Failing in this duty, the client should suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered against him. 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 process and developments of his case; hence, to merely rely on the bare reassurances of his lawyer that everything is being taken care of is not enough.[14] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58317 4/11