Petition for Relief from Judgment

Rule 38, Rules of Court (Philippines)

(Updated to June 12 2025 – all citations are to Philippine Supreme Court decisions unless otherwise indicated)

1. Concept and Purpose

A petition for relief from judgment, order or other proceeding under Rule 38 is an equitable, last-ditch remedy that asks the very court which rendered a final judgment to set it aside because the losing party was prevented from defending the case by “fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence” (FAME). It ensures that the courts’ duty to decide cases on the merits prevails over a purely procedural victory, while preserving the need for finality of judgments.

2. Statutory Basis

Rule	Sections	Key Text	Practical Effect
Rule 38	§ 1–6	– Judgment may be set aside “upon such terms as may be just” if petitioner shows: 1) a good and substantial cause (FAME) and 2) a meritorious defense or cause of action.	Establishes grounds, periods, required affidavits, service, and hearing procedure.

3. Requisites (All Must Be Present)

Timeliness Filed within BOTH of two distinct periods:
- Sixty (60) days from actual knowledge of the judgment, order, or proceeding; and
- Six (6) months from the entry of judgment (or date of order/proceeding). The two periods are cumulative, not alternative.
Verified Petition stating jurisdictional facts, dates of notice and entry, and specific acts constituting FAME.
Affidavit/s of Merit
- Affidavit of FAME: narrates the factual circumstances showing fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.
- Affidavit of Meritorious Defense/Claim: sets out facts constituting a good defense or valid cause of action in detail, not mere conclusions.
No fault or negligence amounting to voluntary abandonment of ordinary remedies (e.g., appeal, motion for new trial).
Service of copies on adverse parties, with proof of service.
Payment of docket and lawful fees.

4. Grounds Explained

Ground	Typical Scenarios	Leading Cases
Fraud (extrinsic)	Opposing party conceals material evidence or papers; deliberately keeps petitioner ignorant of the suit; uses “buy-off” or misrepresentation to prevent appearance in court.	Heirs of Malate v. Gamboa (G.R. 182516, 16 Jan 2013); Valerio v. Tan (G.R. 170044, 13 Jan 2016)
Accident	Party or counsel hospitalized or stranded by natural calamity on date of trial; summons never reaches defendant because the messenger’s vehicle crashed.	People v. Castañeda (G.R. 138610, 9 Apr 2002)
Mistake	Party honestly but mistakenly believes a motion for reconsideration tolled the period to appeal; lawyer mis-calendars date despite ordinary diligence.	Carnival v. Court of Appeals (G.R. 113962, 17 Nov 1993)
Excusable Negligence	Counsel’s negligence is isolated, not habitual, and client was diligent (e.g., lawyer suddenly suspended, clerk misfiles pleading).	Associated Insurance v. CA (G.R. 108370, 10 Nov 1993)

Counsel’s gross negligence binds the client and is not “excusable” (Mendoza v. Sps. Fernandez, G.R. 223473, 19 Apr 2017).

5. Procedural Steps

File in the same court that rendered the assailed judgment—never in a higher court.
Docketed as a new, independent case but raffled to the same branch or division.
Clerk of court issues summons/notice; respondent may file comment or opposition (no answer required).
Summary hearing: petitioner must prove facts of FAME and show prima facie merit.
Court may grant interim injunctive relief to stay execution upon posting of a bond (Rule 38 § 5).
If granted: judgment is set aside; original case is re-opened and proceeds to trial on the merits.
If denied: denial is an appealable order (ordinarily by notice of appeal if the underlying action is appealable).

6. Relationship to Other Remedies

Remedy	When Proper	Rule
Motion for New Trial / Reconsideration	Before judgment becomes final; same FAME grounds but shorter 15-day period.	Rule 37
Ordinary Appeal	Questions of fact or law on the merits; must be perfected within 15 or 30 days.	Rules 40, 41, 42, 43, 45
Annulment of Judgment	When both appeal and Rule 38 are no longer available due to no fault of the party; grounds: (i) extrinsic fraud and (ii) lack of jurisdiction.	Rule 47
Certiorari (Rule 65)	Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack/excess of jurisdiction; filed in higher court; does not lie to correct factual errors.	Rule 65

Hierarchy of resort:

Motion for new trial/reconsideration →
Appeal →
Petition for relief (Rule 38) →
Annulment (Rule 47) or certiorari (Rule 65).

A party who loses the right to appeal through inexcusable negligence cannot circumvent finality by a Rule 38 petition (Fama Marketing v. CA, G.R. 147936, 11 Oct 2004).

7. Jurisprudential Themes

a. Strict Compliance With Periods

Even a single-day delay beyond either the 60-day or 6-month limits is fatal (Libtong v. CA, G.R. 124588, 4 Nov 2002).

b. Proof of Meritorious Defense

The affidavits must show, not merely allege, specific facts which, if admitted, would change the result (Arroyo v. CA, G.R. 160365, 19 Aug 2015).

c. Fraud Must Be Extrinsic

Intrinsic fraud (e.g., perjured testimony already litigated) is not a ground; remedy is by appeal (Spouses Uy v. LandBank, G.R. 168557, 29 Aug 2012).

d. Equity, Not Grace

Relief is granted to serve substantial justice, but equity “aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.” Courts deny petitions where petitioners had ample opportunity to defend yet defaulted through their own neglect (Philippine National Bank v. Delos Reyes, G.R. 160XXXX, 9 Jan 2006).

8. Effect on Execution

No automatic stay. To halt execution the petitioner must:
1. Simultaneously file a separate motion for injunctive relief or temporary restraining order; and
2. Post a bond equal to judgment value or as fixed by the court.
If relief is eventually granted, acts done under the voided judgment are likewise vacated.

9. Criminal Proceedings

Rule 38 is primarily civil-procedural but has been invoked by accused to reopen probation revocations, forfeitures, and civil liabilities within criminal cases. The Court allows it only when it will not disturb the final criminal conviction (People v. Castañeda).

10. Special Proceedings and Quasi-Judicial Bodies

Probate and settlement of estates: allowed because orders are final in character.
Quasi-Judicial Agencies: The Rules of Court apply suppletorily (e.g., NLRC, DARAB) only if their own rules are silent; many agencies now have explicit analogues (e.g., NLRC Rule 12 § 6).

11. Practical Drafting Checklist for Lawyers

☑ State precise dates of knowledge and entry; attach certified copies of judgment and entry of judgment. ☑ Narrate facts of FAME in a separate, sworn affidavit by the person with personal knowledge (client, process server, etc.). ☑ Attach supporting documents (hospital records, travel logs, weather bulletins, affidavits of witnesses). ☑ Affidavit of Merits: layout defenses/evidence in numbered paragraphs; annex key receipts, contracts, photographs. ☑ Pray for injunctive relief and offer bond; specify amount and surety. ☑ Serve copies personally or by accredited courier on adverse counsel the same day of filing. ☑ Calendar follow-up: ask clerk for raffle date and hearing; prepare oral arguments on both diligence and merits.

12. Common Pitfalls

Late filing because party waited for writ of execution to learn judgment had become final.
Reliance on counsel’s carelessness (e.g., mis-stating address, ignoring registry notices).
Generic affidavit that re-pleads answer instead of detailing meritorious defense.
Failure to allege date of notice → petition is fatally defective.
Assuming execution is stayed by the mere filing of Rule 38 petition.

13. Comparative Note

United States “Rule 60(b)” (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) inspired Rule 38, but Philippine practice keeps the dual 60-day/6-month limits whereas U.S. Rule 60(b) allows up to one year for certain grounds.
ASEAN neighbors (e.g., Malaysia’s “Order 42”) likewise recognize relief motions but often treat them as post-judgment applications within the same case docket, unlike the independent action required in the Philippines.

14. Conclusion

A petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 is a narrow, extraordinary doorway to reopen a closed case—available only to the vigilant litigant who, despite genuine FAME, can still demonstrate a solid, winning position on the merits. Courts grant it sparingly, mindful of the constitutional right to due process on one hand, and the institutional need for finality on the other.

Key takeaway: File promptly, substantiate both excuse and defense, and remember that Rule 38 is a shield for the unjustly blindsided, not a lifeline for the negligent.

This article is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For specific cases, consult a qualified Philippine lawyer.