5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly extending the period because the disability suffered by the Martinez was permanent. Consequently, by operation of law, Martinez' illness is deemed permanent and total as of the date of the expiration of the 120-day period counted from his repatriation to the Philippines. Hence, by the time that Martinez filed his labor complaint on the 154th day from his repatriation, his illness is already deemed total and permanent. Coupled with the presumption that a seafarer's injury or illness during the term of his employment contract is work-related, which remained unrebutted by the incomplete and uncertain 26 June 2014 medical report of the company-designated doctor, Martinez certainly has a cause of action against OSG and Pacific Ocean Manning when he filed his complaint. He was under no obligation to consult with a physician of his choice under the given circumstances. Finally, the Court rejects the argument of Martinez that the instant petition is rendered moot and academic by virtue of the fact that he had already received in full amount the judgment award granted by the LA through a conditional satisfaction of the judgment award. It is worthy to note that the parties agreed into a conditional satisfaction of judgment award before the CA rendered its decision which deleted the award for sick wage allowance, medical and travel expenses, and attorney's fees. As correctly found by the CA, the nature and terms of their agreement (conditional satisfaction of the judgment award) are very clear in that the same is without prejudice to the final outcome of the petition for certiorari pending before the CA. Moreover, it is unrebutted that Martinez himself executed an affidavit of claimant in which he understood and agreed to return the amount should there be a reversal or modification of the decisions of the LA and the NLRC. In the absence of special circumstances that would warrant a departure from the rule, stipulations in a contract are binding as between the parties unless they are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.[23] Thus, the Court holds that the terms of the conditional satisfaction of judgment award are binding upon Martinez. As such, the filing of the certiorari petition and the decision of the CA was not rendered moot by the conditional settlement entered into by the parties which clearly indicated that it is subject to the outcome of the certiorari petition. The same can be said to the instant petition for review which is simply an appeal and continuation of the certiorari petition. In addition and as stated earlier, the parties' conditional settlement is subject to the reversal or modification of the judgment of the LA and the NLRC, which includes the modification of said judgment by the Court. Accordingly, nothing would prevent OSG and Pacific Ocean Manning from demanding from Martinez to return or restitute, in accordance with existing rules, any excess amount that they have paid by virtue of the conditional satisfaction of the judgment award. Needless to say, to allow Martinez to retain the excess payment would be tantamount to unjust enrichment at the expense of OSG and Pacific Ocean Manning whose entitlement thereto is further buttressed by, and in line with, Section 14, Rule XI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure which provides: 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 https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66703 7/9