Decision 4 G.R. No. 211829 claims that he was a victim of gross ignorance of the law and that there exists a "gross negligence of counsel" remedy established by jurisprudence, under which his petition for relief should have been recognized by the CA. The Court's Ruling We address first the propriety of the CA's outright denial of the petition. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is 13 entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. Notably, the petition for relief was filed in the same case, which resolution had already become final. An examination of petitioner's averments and relief sought, i.e., the setting aside of a final and executory resolution denying an appeal, leads to no other conclusion than that it is the mode provided under Rule 3 8 of the Rules of Court whether or not that was what petitioner intended. The CA cannot, thus, be faulted for treating the petition as one which sought the relief provided by Rule 38, and consequently dismissing it. It is settled that a petition for relief from judgment is not an available remedy in the CA. 14 Citing Spouses Mesina v. Meer 15 in its assailed January 29, 2014 Resolution, the CA reasoned that a petition for relief is not the proper remedy from a CA Resolution dismissing an appeal. As explained in Mesina: x x x While Rule 38 uses the phrase "any court," it refers only to municipal/metropolitan and regional trial courts. The procedure in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court are governed by separate provisions of the Rules of Court and may, from time to time, be supplemented by additional rules promulgated by the Supreme Court through resolutions or circulars. As it stands, neither the Rules of Court nor the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of ARpeals allow the remedy of petition for relief in the Court of Appeals. 6 (Underscoring supplied) Petitioner nonetheless insists that his petition for relief is different from that under Rule 3 8 of the Rules of Court. As his petition was based on the alleged gross negligence of his counsel, he asserts that there exists a distinct remedy provided by jurisprudence and not by the Rules of Court. There is, however, no such mode that is independent of the Rules. 13 14 15 16 City of Dumaguete vs. Philippine Ports Authority, 671 Phil . 610, 629 (2011 ). Purcon, Jr. v. MRM Philippines, Inc., 588 Phil. 308, 314 (2008). 433 Phil. 124 (2002). Id. at 135-136. ~