"Government Code section 946.6 is a remedial statute intended to provide relief from technical rules which otherwise provide a trap for the unwary. The remedial policy underlying the statute is that wherever possible cases should be heard on their merits. Thus, a
denial of such relief by the trial court is examined more rigorously than where relief is granted and any doubts which may exist should be resolved in favor of the application. (
Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. [(1986)] 42 Cal.3d [270,] 275-276 [228 Cal.Rptr. 190, 721 P.2d 71];
Drummond v. County of Fresno [(1987)] 193 Cal.App.3d [1406,] 1410-1411 [238 Cal.Rptr. 613].)
(5) "Relief from the six-month limit is granted under the same showing as is required for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. (
Viles v. State of California (1967) 66 Cal.2d 24, 29 [56 Cal.Rptr. 666, 423 P.2d 818] [construing predecessor statutes].) It is the well-recognized policy of the law to liberally construe remedial statutes designed to protect persons within their purview, and the modern trend of judicial decisions favors granting relief unless absolutely forbidden by statute." (
Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1778.)
However, "[f]iling a late-claim application within one year after the accrual of a cause of action is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a claim-relief petition. (
Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of Education [(1990)] 220 Cal.App.3d [702,] 713 [269 Cal.Rptr. 605].) When the underlying application to file a late claim is filed more than one year after the accrual of the cause of action, the court is without jurisdiction to grant relief under Government Code section 946.6. (
Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. County of Santa Clara (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 480, 488 [231 Cal.Rptr. 702].)" (
Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1779; see § 911.4, subd. (b).)