4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In Philippine Amanah Bank v. Contreras,[63] the Court explained the remedy of a petition for relief as follows: Relief from judgment is a remedy provided by law to any person against whom a decision or order is entered through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. It is a remedy, equitable in character, that is allowed only in exceptional cases when there is no other available or adequate remedy. When a party has another remedy available to him, which may either be a motion for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the trial court, and he was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking such appeal, he can not avail of the remedy of petition for relief.[64] Further, in City of Dagupan v. Maramba,[65] the Court explained the grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 38; thus: Excusable negligence as a ground for a petition for relief requires that the negligence be so gross "that ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against it." This excusable negligence must also be imputable to the party-litigant and not to his or her counsel whose negligence binds his or her client. The binding effect of counsel's negligence ensures against the resulting uncertainty and tentativeness of proceedings if clients were allowed to merely disown their counsels' conduct. Nevertheless, this court has relaxed this rule on several occasions such as: " (1) where [the] reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when [the rule's] application will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of justice so require." Certainly, excusable negligence must be proven. Fraud as a ground for a petition for relief from judgment pertains to extrinsic or collateral fraud. This court explained this type of fraud as follows: Where fraud is the ground, the fraud must be extrinsic or collateral. The extrinsic or collateral fraud that invalidates a final judgment must be such that it prevented the unsuccessful party from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense and the losing party from having an adversarial trial of the issue. There is extrinsic fraud when a party is prevented from fully presenting his case to the court as when the lawyer connives to defeat or corruptly sells out his client's interest. Extrinsic fraud can be committed by a counsel against his client when the latter is prevented from presenting his case to the court. On the other hand, mistake as used in Rule 38 means mistake of fact and not mistake of law. A wrong choice in legal strategy or mode of procedure will not be considered a mistake for purposes of granting a petition for relief from judgment. Mistake as a ground also "does not apply and was never intended to apply to a judicial error which the court might have committed in the trial [since] such error may be corrected by means of an appeal." https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66374 8/16