Section 2. Petition to Court of First Instance for relief from the judgment or other proceeding thereof. When a judgment order is entered, or any other proceeding is taken against a party in a Court of First Instance 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.   The procedural change in Rule 38 is in line with Rule 5, prescribing uniform procedure for Municipal and Regional Trial Courts[13] and designation of Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Courts as courts of record.[14]   Third, the procedure in the CA and the Supreme Court are governed by separate provisions of the Rules of Court.[15] It 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 CA[16] allows the remedy of petition for relief in the CA.       There is no provision in the Rules of Court making the petition for relief applicable in the CA or this Court. The procedure in the CA from Rules 44 to 55, with the exception of Rule 45 which pertains to the Supreme Court, identifies the remedies available before said Court such as annulment of judgments or final orders or resolutions (Rule 47), motion for reconsideration (Rule 52), and new trial (Rule 53). Nowhere is a petition for relief under Rule 38 mentioned.   If a petition for relief from judgment is not among the remedies available in the CA, with more reason that this remedy cannot be availed of in the Supreme Court. This Court entertains only questions of law. A petition for relief raises questions of facts on fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, which are beyond the concerns of this Court.   Nevertheless, even if We delve into the merits of the petition, the same must still be dismissed. The late filing of the petition for review does not amount to excusable negligence. Petitioners lack of devotion in discharging his duty, without demonstrating fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, cannot be a basis for judicial relief. For a claim of counsels gross negligence to prosper, nothing short of clear abandonment of the clients cause must be shown.