6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The NLRC Decision dated February 12, 2012 and Resolution dated March 16, 2012 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, private respondent's complaint is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.[19] Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[20] insisting among others that the Petition for Certiorari has been rendered moot and academic by the respondents' satisfaction of the judgment in full and that his illness is compensable. However, the CA denied the same in its September 3, 2013 Resolution. Hence, the present Petition. Issues Petitioner submits the following assignment of errors for resolution: I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN AWAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS NOT RENDERED MOOT AND ACADEMIC BY THE VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OF THE JUDGMENT AWARD BY THE PETITIONERS WHICH RESULTED IN THE FULL AND FINAL SATISFACTION OF THE JUDGMENT. II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REVERSING THE NLRC AND DENYING THE CLAIMS OF SEAMAN HERNANDEZ FOR PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND OTHER BENEFITS.[21] Petitioner's Arguments Praying that the assailed CA pronouncements be set aside and that the NLRC judgment be reinstated instead, petitioner contends in his Petition and Reply[22] that contrary to the ruling of the CA, the doctrine in Career Phils. Ship Management, Inc. v. Madjus case applies to him as well, since he is likewise prohibited from pursuing further claims under the documents he was made to sign; that all these documents - Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment, Receipt of Payment, and Affidavit - in Career Phils. Ship Management and in this case are identical and were prepared by one and the same counsel, the del Rosario and del Rosario Law Offices; that in signing these documents, he did so out of financial necessity and was left with no other recourse; that nonetheless, even assuming that the CA is correct in not applying Career Phils. Ship Management, he is still entitled to disability benefits and other claims awarded by the NLRC, as his illness is work-connected and thus compensable; and that he has worked for respondents since 2005 - which shows that his hypertension and diabetes developed and/or were aggravated while working for respondents and having to contend with the perils of the sea, harsh climate and weather conditions, and emotional strain of being away from his family. Respondents' Arguments In their joint Comment,[23] respondents reiterate the CA pronouncement, adding that in paying petitioner conditionally, they simply acted in good faith, complied with the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62635 8/14