sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/178431.pdf
"x x x.
It is incumbent upon the client to exert all efforts to retain the services of new counsel. VCP knew since August 29, 2006, seven months before the CA rendered its Decision, that it had no counsel. Despite its knowledge, it did not immediately hire a lawyer to attend to its affairs. Instead, it waited until the last minute, when it had already received the adverse CA Decision on April 10, 2007, to search for a counsel; and even then, VCP did not rush to meet the deadline. It asked for an extension of 30 days to file a Motion for Reconsideration.
It finally retained the services of a new counsel on May 24, 2007, nine months from the time that its former counsel withdrew her appearance. VCP did not even attempt
to explain its inaction. The Court cannot grant equity where it is clearly undeserved by a grossly negligent party.
As the Court pronounced in another case:
x x x Both parties have a right to a speedy resolution of their case. Not only petitioners, but also the respondents, have a right to have the case finally settled without delay.
Furthermore, the failure to file x x x on time was due primarily to petitioners’ unwise choices x x x. [T]hey hired their subsequent lawyers too late. It must be pointed out that petitioners had a choice of whether to continue the services of their original lawyer or consent to let him go. x x x
[T]hey delayed in engaging their replacement lawyer. Their poor choices and lack of sufficient diligence x x x are the main culprits for the situation they now find themselves in. It would not be fair to pass on the bad consequences of their
choices to respondents. Petitioners’ low regard for the rules or nonchalance toward procedural requirements x x x has in fact contributed much to the delay, and hence frustration of justice, in the present case.
x x x."
