G.R. No. 234491 - Duremdes vs. Jorilla

On August 27, 2009, respondents filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money plus Damages (Civil Case No. Q-09-65496, RTC Quezon City, Branch 97) against petitioner Kenneth Duremdes and co-defendant Emerflor B. Manginsay, Jr., alleging they were majority stockholders of Vitamins & Cebu Artists International, Inc. (VCAII) and liable for illegal recruitment.
Summons was served by publication in Viewliner Weekly News (March 29–April 18, 2010 issues); neither Duremdes nor Manginsay filed an answer, prompting the RTC to declare them in default and allow ex parte presentation of evidence.

March 20, 2014: RTC rendered a decision awarding actual and moral damages to respondents.
May 22, 2014: Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment under Rule 38(Rules of Court), alleging extrinsic fraud in specifying an erroneous address, lack of valid service of summons, and respondents’ non-forum shopping.
July 21, 2016: RTC denied the petition for relief; April 12, 2017: Motion for Reconsideration denied; writ of execution ordered.
July 17, 2017: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari (with TRO/preliminary injunction) under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA); July 25 and September 26, 2017: CA dismissed petition and denied reconsideration.

Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the petition for certiorari for alleged non-compliance with documentary requirements and failure to appeal?
In light of the alleged extrinsic fraud and lack of valid service of summons, could petitioner properly avail of a petition for relief despite the availability of appeal and the reglementary periods?