6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly reads: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the instant petition is DISMISSED for having become MOOT AND ACADEMIC.[13] Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the said decision, but it was denied in the CA Resolution, dated September 9, 2013. Hence, this petition. Issues and Arguments For resolution is the sole issue of whether the CA committed reversible error in dismissing the petition for having become moot and academic. Petitioners contend that the settlement of the judgment award was by virtue of a writ of execution duly issued and was effected specifically without prejudice to further recourse before the CA. There was nothing voluntary about the satisfaction of the judgment award made in strict and compulsory compliance with Rule XI, Section 8 of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure. The terms of the settlement were fair to both the employer and the employee. Hence, the ruling in Career Philippines, relied upon by the CA, was inapplicable. On April 14, 2014, Picar filed his Comment[14] wherein he stresses that the CA committed no error in dismissing the petition. He asserts that the voluntary satisfaction by petitioners of the full judgment award rendered the said petition moot and was a clear indication that petitioners believed on the merits and judiciousness of the award for disability compensation. Petitioners fault the CA for dismissing outright the petition for being moot and academic instead of resolving the same on its merits. The Court’s Ruling As correctly argued by petitioners, the petition for certiorari before the CA was not rendered moot and academic by their satisfaction of the judgment award in compliance with the writ of execution issued by the LA The CA cited Career Philippines, but it finds no application here. Career Philippines was resolved on equitable considerations. In the said case, while petitioner employer had the luxury of having other remedies available to it such as its petition for certiorari pending before the CA and an eventual appeal to this Court, respondent seafarer could no longer pursue other claims, including for interests that may accrue during the pendency of the case. Thus, it was held that the LA and the CA could not be faulted for interpreting petitioner’s "conditional settlement" to be tantamount to an amicable settlement of the case resulting in the mootness of the petition for certiorari. In this case, no such document was executed between the parties. The payment of the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59612 3/7