6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly when he signed the Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment. To renege thereon constitutes bad faith. From the foregoing disquisition, it is clear that the present action is not yet moot and academic. xxxx There is no question that private respondent was able to finish his contract with petitioners without any incident, notwithstanding the fact that private respondent was already suffering from hypertension and diabetes mellitus prior to boarding the latter's vessel. x x x xxxx On the other band, this Court disagrees with the NLRC's finding that private respondent's work aggravated his condition. As aptly noted by the Labor Arbiter, private respondent was able to finish his contract without any incident. x x x xxxx Likewise, the Court disagrees with the NLRC's pronouncement that petitioners had a change of heart anent private respondent's postemployment medical examination when they directed the latter to undergo medical examination by the company doctor on March 22, 2010 because the said examination is preparatory to the signing of a new contract. x x x Indeed, it cannot be concluded that private respondent's condition was aggravated after the expiration of his previous contract, considering that he was still willing to enter into a new contract for deployment on board one of petitioners' vessels. In fact, private respondent indicated in his Exit Interview dated December 21, 2009 that the condition of the ship, its safety level as well as the food, was good and that he actually showed willingness to rejoin the vessel. Accordingly, this Court finds no basis for the NLRC to declare that private respondent's work aggravated his condition. Certainly, there is also no basis for the NLRC to observe that the dietary provisions on board the ship likewise aggravated private respondent's condition, considering that the latter, as chief cook, prepared the food himself, which he rated as good. In a plethora of cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that grave abuse of discretion may arise when a lower court or tribunal violates or contravenes the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. In fine, We hold that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering/issuing its said Decision and Resolution. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62635 7/14