6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly She claims that the Petition filed before the Court of Appeals should have been considered moot and academic since the judgment award was fully settled.[56] On the other hand, Bahia Shipping argues that the Petition should be dismissed because petitioner raised questions of facts that are not allowed in petitions for review on certiorari.[57] Bahia Shipping also argues that Nonay is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits because she "was declared fit to work within the 240-day period[.]"[58] She filed the Complaint before the Labor Arbiter without complying with the mandated procedure that the medical assessment be referred to a third doctor in the event that the company-designated physician and the personal physician differ in their findings, as in this case.[59] In addition, Nonay's personal physician, Dr. Jacinto, did not show how prolonged walking and standing could result to adenomyoma.[60] Nonay consulted Dr. Jacinto only once. Further, he is an orthopedic surgeon and not an obstetrician-gynecologist.[61] We resolve the following issues: First, whether the satisfaction of the judgment award rendered the Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals moot and academic; Second, whether the Petition should be dismissed for allegedly raising questions of fact; Third, whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the Petition for Certiorari and setting aside the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission; Fourth, whether petitioner Maricel S. Nonay is entitled to full disability benefits under the Norwegian Collective Bargaining Agreement; Fifth, whether the employee has the burden to prove to the court that the illness was acquired or aggravated during the period of employment before the disputable presumption that the illness is work-related or work-aggravated arises; and Lastly, whether petitioner is permanently and totally disabled because the companydesignated physician failed to certify that she is fit to work after the lapse of 120 days. This court denies the Petition and affirms the Decision of the Court of Appeals. I Payment of the judgment award in labor cases does not always render a petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals, or a petition for review on certiorari filed before this court, moot and academic. A similar issue was decided in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., et al. v. Canja.[62] In Eastern Shipping, the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission became final and executory and was satisfied during the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61719 5/26