warrant the exercise of this Courts discretionary appellate jurisdiction. He was not able to convince this Court why the actions of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA, which have passed upon the same issue, should be reversed. Consequently, on October 9, 2007, an Entry of Judgment was issued.   On May 6, 2008, petitioner filed the instant petition for relief from judgment interposing the following grounds:   I. The Honorable Labor Arbiter committed a GROSS MISTAKE when he based his decision on the fit to work certification issued by the companydesignated physician and on the Quitclaim and Release executed by the complainant;   II. The Honorable Labor Arbiter further committed a GROSS MISTAKE when he adopted the irrelevant jurisprudence cited by the respondents and by adopting it in his decision;   III. The Honorable NLRC Third Division also committed a GROSS MISTAKE when it affirms the ERRONEOUS decision of the Honorable Labor Arbiter;   IV. The factual findings of the Honorable Labor Arbiter, and the Honorable NLRC Third Division, are not based on substantial evidenceand that their decisions are contrary to the applicable law and jurisprudence; and   V. The collaborating counsel of the petitioner committed a GROSS MISTAKE in filing defective pleadings to the prejudice of the herein petitioner.[9] The threshold issue before Us is Can petitioner avail of a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure from Our resolution denying his petition for review?   We answer in the negative. A petition for relief from judgment is not an available remedy in the Supreme Court.   First, although Section 1 of Rule 38 states that when a judgment or final order is entered through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, a party in any court may file a petition for relief from judgment, this rule must be interpreted in harmony with Rule 56, which enumerates the original cases cognizable by the Supreme Court, thus:   Section 1. Original cases cognizable. Only petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, disciplinary proceedings against members of the judiciary and attorneys, and cases