6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly further execution proceedings that I have initiated with the NLRC. 4. That I understand that the payment of the judgment awards in the amount of US$77,000.00 or its equivalent in Philippine currency is without prejudice to the shipowners'/manning agents' Petition for Certiorari pending with the Court of Appeals case entitled "Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. and/or Mr. Carlos C. Salinas and Norwegian Crew Management A/S versus National Labor Relations Commission and Cesar C. Pelagio"; 5. That I understand that in case of reversal and/or modification of the Decision and the Resolution dated 24 August 2011 and 4 October 2011 of the NLRC by the Court of Appeals and/or the Supreme Court, I shall return whatever is due and owing to shipowners/manning agents without need of further demand; 6. That I recognize the NLRC's jurisdiction on Restitution proceedings, in case of a reversal of judgment by the Higher Courts by virtue of the NLRC 2011 Rules of Procedure, Rule XI, Section 14 thereof, to wit: "SECTION 14. EFFECT OF REVERSAL OF EXECUTED JUDGMENT. Where the executed judgment is totally or partially reversed or annulled by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the Labor Arbiter shall, on motion, issue such orders of restitution of the executed awards, except wages paid during reinstatement pending appeal."[57] A reading of the foregoing documents reveals that: (a) petitioners paid Pelagio P3,313,772.00 as full and complete satisfaction of the NLRC rulings; (b) such payment is made in order to prevent imminent execution of such rulings being undertaken by the NLRC and Pelagio; (c) such payment is without prejudice to the outcome of the certiorari proceedings before the CA; and (d) in case of partial or complete reversal of the NLRC judgment by the CA, Pelagio is obliged to reimburse petitioners accordingly. More importantly, the foregoing documents do not have any clause prohibiting either of the parties from seeking further redress against each other. Thus, both petitioners and Pelagio may pursue any of the available legal remedies should any eventuality arise in their dispute, i.e., when the CA renders a ruling adverse to their respective interests. It can, therefore, be said that similar to the Philippine Transmarine case above-cited, the agreement entered into by the petitioners and Pelagio is fair and is not prejudicial to either party, and thus, such agreement did not render the certiorari proceedings before the CA moot and academic. In sum, the CA erred in dismissing the certiorari petition before it on the basis of the compromise agreement between petitioners and Pelagio. In view of the fact that such dismissal was not based on the merits, the Court deems it appropriate to remand the case to the CA for further proceedings. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly the Decision dated December 21, 2012 and the Resolution dated February 17, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No. 122771 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. CA-G.R. SP No. 122771 is elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61185 8/12