4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Mistake can be of such nature as to cause substantial injustice to one of the parties. It may be so palpable that it borders on extrinsic fraud.[66] Also, the time for filing a petition for relief is provided under Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court; thus: SEC. 3. Time for filing petition; contents and verification. – A petition provided for in either of the preceding sections of this Rule must be verified, filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) 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 relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be. The double period provided under Section 3, Rule 38, i.e., (1) 60 days after petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside; and (2) not more than six months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken, is jurisdictional and must be strictly complied with.[67] Thus, a petition for relief from judgment filed beyond the reglementary period is dismissed outright.[68] Thus, for the filing of a petition for relief to be proper, petitioner must satisfy the following requirements: (1) he or she has no adequate remedy available to him, which is either a motion for new trial or appeal from adverse decisions of the lower court, and he was prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking the appeal;[69] and (2) he or she must comply with the double period set forth under Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.[70] However, these rules are not to be taken as absolute. In fact, the Court deems it proper to make an exception in this case. Specifically, the above-stated rule will not apply when a petition for relief which is grounded on extrinsic fraud ultimately results in the court's lack of jurisdiction over the defendant, and which consequently makes the judgment rendered by the trial court void. In such a case, the petition for relief should not be dismissed for failure of one to avail himself of the remedy of an appeal and for untimeliness. The Court explains below. Here, petitioner invoked the ground of extrinsic fraud in his petition for relief. He argued that he was deprived of the opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the RTC in Civil Case No. Q-09-65496 by reason of respondents' act of providing the court with an erroneous address where summons may be served on him. Petitioner alleged that respondents' act was for the purpose of fraudulently gaining a favorable judgment. The rule is that jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is acquired either through service of summons or through voluntary appearance in court and submission to its https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66374 9/16