11. Ventanilla Corporation vs Adelina Tan Ventanilla leased two properties to the Tans in Cabanatuan City.

The Tan failed to comply with the lease agreement and Ventanilla sued for the cancellation and termination of the lease. The RTC of Cabanatuan City rendered a favorable judgment for Ventanilla which included the lease rate plus interest, exemplary damages, liquidated damages equivalent to 50% of the unpaid rent, forfeiture of their deposit, and pay 15% equivalent of the unpaid rentals as attorney's fees plus cost of suit. The Tans appealed the decision and Ventanilla filed for a motion for execution pending appeal, which was granted. A levy was put on their bank accounts, but the Tans decided to pay later on, lifting and cancelling the levy. Alfredo Tan's appeal was denied, but Adelina Tan's continued in due course. The Court of Appeals ruled that the appeal is partially granted with the deletion of exemplary damages and attorney's fees and reduction of the liquidated damages to 25% with all other aspects affirmed. There was no motion for reconsideration or appeal and the CA decision became final and executory. Adelina filed a Motion for Execution of the CA's decision and to be refunded the excess she previously. Ventanilla instead filed an Omnibus motion to recall, lift, and set aside the CA decision. Ventanilla argued that he needed to file an appeal brief because his previous attorney died before such notice of decision, and the appeal is deemed moot since Adelina paid her obligation already. The RTC granted Adelina's motion and denied petitioner's reconsideration. Petitioner then assailed the RTC decision with certiorari to the CA, which was also denied. The CA rendered a decision that the death of petitioner's counsel does not qualify a recall of a case. Issues: Whether or not notice was properly given since petitioner's counsel died before the conclusion of the appeal? Whether or not the refund to Adelina was proper since her appeal was moot when she paid her obligation? Held: The Supreme Court denies petitioner's contention. The High Court ruled that is is the duty of the party to inform the court of the death of counsel. The courts cannot constantly moniter the status of a law firm, whether the partners are alive, or its associates are still connected with the firm. The parties should not just sit back and relax and just wait for the outcome. The petitioner was given due process and failed to participate in such. The payment of Adelina was not for the satisfaction of her obligation, but merely in compliance the execution pending appeal. There was no compromise agreement within the court records to support the petitioner's contention.