A petition for relief from judgment is a legal remedy for a judgment that has attained finality.
As discussed in my most recent article, such a petition is one of the legal remedies available to an aggrieved party to question a final and executory judgment.
“A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy… allowed only in exceptional cases. It is not available if other remedies exist, such as a motion for new trial or appeal” (Madarang v. Spouses Morales G.R. 199283, June 9, 2014). It may not also be filed if the latter remedies were not availed of, or the period to utilize them has expired due to the fault of the petitioner.
“The petition is the proper remedy of a party seeking to set aside a judgment rendered against him by a court whenever he was unjustly deprived of a hearing, was prevented from taking an appeal, or a judgment or final order entered because of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence” (Lasam v. Philippine National Bank, et al., G.R. 207433, December 5, 2018).
To avail oneself of the petition for relief, the grounds provided in Rule 38 of the Rules of Civil Procedure must be present in the petition and must also be filed within the required periods.
These grounds are fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
“To set aside a judgment through a petition for relief, the negligence must be so gross ‘that ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against.’ This is to prevent parties from reviv[ing] the right to appeal [already] lost through inexcusable negligence”(G.R. 199283, June 9, 2014).
In the case of Madarang and Bartolome v. Spouses Morales, “[p]etitioners argue that their former counsel’s failure to file a notice of appeal within the reglementary period was ‘a mistake and an excusable negligence due to [their former counsel’s] age.’ This argument stereotypes and demeans senior citizens… [and] asks this court to assume that a person with advanced age is prone to incompetence… [which] cannot be done” (G.R. 199283, June 9, 2014).
“Since petitioners filed their notice of appeal only on August 11, 2010 (or beyond the deadline of July 9, 2010), the trial court correctly denied the notice of appeal… There is… no showing that the negligence could have been prevented through ordinary diligence and prudence… [hence], petitioners are bound by their counsel’s negligence”(G.R. 199283, June 9, 2014).
“Jurisprudence provides that fraud, as a ground for a petition for relief, refers to extrinsic or collateral fraud which, in turn, has been defined as fraud that prevented the unsuccessful party from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense and from having an adversarial trial of the issue, as when the lawyer connives to defeat or corruptly sells out his client’s interest” (Santos v. Santos, G.R. 214593, July 17, 2019 citing Lasala v. National Food Authority).
“[I]n cases of gross and palpable negligence of counsel and of extrinsic fraud, the Court must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered thereby. [F]or the extrinsic fraud to justify a petition for relief from judgment, it must be fraud which the prevailing party caused to prevent the losing party from being heard on his action or defense… [the] fraud concerns not the judgment itself but the manner in which it was obtained” (G.R. 214593, July 17, 2019).
“If the incompetence, ignorance or inexperience of counsel is so great and the error committed as a result thereof is so serious that the client, who otherwise has a good cause, is prejudiced and denied his day in court, the litigation may be reopened to give the client another chance to present his case” (G.R. 214593, July 17, 2019 citing Apex Mining, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals).
In the case of Lasam v. Philippine National Bank, et al., “Lasam claimed she only learned of the finality of the February 23, 2010 Order after she consulted a different lawyer. She also averred that she was seriously deprived of her right to present her case due to the gross negligence and ignorance of her former counsel…” (G.R. 207433, December 05, 2018).
Lasam summarized the actions of her former lawyer as: (a) her failure to appear on the February 23, 2010 hearing of the case; (b) her failure to file the motion for reconsideration on time; and (c) her use of the wrong remedy by filing a second motion for reconsideration which led to the finality of the February 23, 2010 Order (G.R. 207433, December 05, 2018).
“The records reveal that Lasam’s knowledge of the… Order could be traced to at least two periods: on February 23, 2010, when the Court issued the subject Order and… Lasam was… in attendance; and on July 23, 2010, the date… [of] the Verification and Certification for the Petition for Certiorari filed with the CA [as signed by Lasam]”(G.R. 207433, December 05, 2018).
“[W]hile there was an attempt to argue the compliance with the 60-day period in the petition for relief, there was no effort to show that the six-month period – which is equally relevant for a petition for relief – was complied with. It may be that this was consciously adopted to conceal the fact that the petition for relief was also filed beyond the sixth month reglementary period” (G.R. 207433, December 05, 2018).
“As pointed out by the PNB, the RTC’s February 23, 2010 Order was, in effect, entered on May 3, 2012, when this Court’s February 22, 2012 Resolution in G.R. No. 199846 was entered in the Book of Entries of Judgments… [I]t is clear that Lasam failed to comply with the 60-day period… when she filed her petition for relief on January 22, 2013, or almost three years from the time she acquired knowledge of the order sought to be set aside” (G.R. 207433, December 05, 2018).
“Likewise, she failed to comply with the six-month period provided in the same Rule when she filed her petition for relief more than eight months from the date of entry of the order sought to be set aside… Since strict compliance with the relevant periods was not observed, the RTC correctly dismissed Lasam’s petition” (G.R. 207433, December 05, 2018).
A petition for relief from judgment must be “filed within 60 days after petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken; and must be accompanied with affidavits, showing the fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence…” (Section 3, Rule 38, Rules of Civil Procedure).
“It should be noted that the 60-day period from knowledge of the decision, and the 6-month period from entry of judgment, are both unextendible and uninterruptible… A petition… filed beyond the reglementary period [must be] dismissed outright… because [it]… is an exception to the public policy of immutability of final judgments” (G.R. 199283, June 9, 2014).
For example, if the petitioner “learns” of the final and executory judgment on July 15, 2023, he has 60 days from July 15, 2023 or until September 14, 2023 to file the petition for relief from judgment. However, the 60 days is within a bigger time period of six months from the entry of judgment.
In case a petition for relief is denied by the trial court and such a denial is questioned in the appellate court, the latter must “determine not only the existence of any of the grounds relied upon whether it be fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, but also and primarily the merit of the petitioner’s cause of action or defense, as the case may be” (G.R. 214593, July 17, 2019).
“If the appellate court finds that one of the grounds exists and, what is of decisive importance, that the petitioner has a good cause of action or defense, it will reverse the denial or dismissal, set aside the judgment in the main case and remand the case to the lower court for a new trial in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 38” (G.R. 214593, July 17, 2019).
