4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly have submitted was a photocopy of the Decision dated March 20, 2014, which was signed by the judge and not mere a photocopy bearing the notation "ORIGINAL SIGNED," in lieu of the judge's signature. In any event, the Court considers as substantial compliance with the rule the petitioner's attachment of the certified true copy of the Decision dated March 20, 2014 in his Motion for Reconsideration before the CA.[55] As to petitioner's purported failure to attach copies of other pertinent pleadings/documents and other relevant portions of the records, petitioner reasoned that his counsel deemed it only necessary to attach the Petition for Relief and respondent's Answer, and not the Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration and the Reply thereto considering that the latter were summarized in the Order dated April 12, 2017 of the RTC.[56] In any event, petitioner still attached to the Motion for Reconsideration before the CA copies of the Comment/Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration of Order[57] dated July 21, 2016 and the Reply thereto.[58] Petitioner also explained that a writ of execution has yet to be issued by the RTC at the time of filing the motion for reconsideration. Thus, petitioner attached only the copies of the Urgent Motion to Issue Writ of Execution[59] and Opposition[60] thereto. In fine, the CA should not have been too rigid in applying the rules to dismiss the petition based on mere technicalities. Applying our pronouncements in Jaro v. Court of Appeals[61] and Air Philippines Corp. v. Zamora,[62] the CA should have considered petitioner's submissions attached to the motion for reconsideration as substantial compliance to the formal requirements under Section 1 of Rule 65. Propriety of availing oneself of the remedy of a petition for relief despite failure to appeal. Another ground relied upon by the CA in dismissing the petition for certiorari is petitioner's failure to explain as to why he did not avail himself of the remedy of an appeal. However, in this particular case wherein the extrinsic fraud alleged by petitioner allegedly resulted in the lack of valid service of summons upon him and consequently, the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over his person, the Court rules that the issues on the availability of an appeal and the propriety of availing oneself of the remedy of petition for relief may only be resolved by looking into the merits of petitioner's arguments. First, a discussion on the nature of a petition for relief is proper. A petition for relief is governed by Section 1, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. It provides: SEC. 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings. When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66374 7/16