action in the Philippines, Panama, Japan or any country against the shipowners and/or released parties herein after receiving the payment of US$66,000.00 or its peso equivalent of PhP2,932,974.00. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)     In effect, while petitioner had the luxury of having other remedies available to it such as its petition for certiorari pending before the appellate court, and an eventual appeal to this Court, respondent, on the other hand, could no longer pursue other claims, including for interests that may accrue during the pendency of the case.   Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, it could not, at the time respondent moved for the execution of the Labor Arbiter’s monetary awards, have been compelled to immediately pay the judgment award, for it had filed with the NLRC an appeal bond,21[21] intended to assure respondent that if he prevailed in the case, he would receive the money judgment in his favor upon the dismissal of the employer's appeal.22[22] The Labor Arbiter and the appellate court may not thus 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.     21 [21] Vide Surety Bond from Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation, id. at 192-195. 22 [22] Accessories Specialist, Inc. v. Alabanza, G.R. No. 168985, 23 July 2008, 559 SCRA 550, 562.