Petition for relief from judgment

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).

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”