4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the CA enumerated, as follows: (1) There is no explanation at all in the present petition and in the petition for relief from judgment as to why petitioner did not avail of the remedy of appeal upon his receipt of the trial court's Decision dated March 20, 2014. The petition for relief from judgment, merely alleged: In this case, petitioner only learned about the said Decision of this Honorable Court dated 20 March 2014 last 25 April 2014. Hence, under Section 3 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, petitioner has sixty days (60) from notice or until 24 June 2014 and six (6) months after the judgment or final order was entered. It is basic that a petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy and is allowed only in exceptional cases from final judgments or orders when no other remedy is available. It will not be entertained when the proper remedy is appeal or certiorari. Apparently, in this case, the petition for relief from judgment was filed on May 28, 2014 as a substitute for a lost appeal. It necessarily follows that the present petition for certiorari, an extraordinary remedy, cannot be availed of to cure a previously lost legal remedy. (2) There is no original, duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed Decision dated July 21, 2016 attached to the petition, in violation of Section 1, Rule 65, in relation to Section 3, Rule 46, Revised Rules of Court. The Decision dated July 21, 2016 attached as Annex "C" of the petition was only marked with "ORIGINAL SIGNED" on page 8 thereof. Apart from this, the Decision dated March 20, 2014 attached to the petition as Annex "A" is an illegible photocopy. (3) Copies of pertinent pleadings/documents and other relevant portions of the records, such as the opposition to the motion for reconsideration, reply, writ of execution, among others, are not attached as annexes to the petition.[29] Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied it in its Resolution[30] dated September 26, 2017. Hence, the petition. The Court's Ruling The Court grants the petition. At the outset, the Court finds no merit in respondents' argument that the present petition should be dismissed for failure to implead the CA as a public respondent.[31] Suffice it to state that what petitioner filed is a petition for review on certiorari. Unlike in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, wherein the public respondent is included as a nominal party, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court does not require the public respondent to be impleaded.[32] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66374 3/16