6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly judgment award without prejudice by petitioners required no obligations whatsoever on the part of Picar. The case of Leonis Navigation v. Villamater(Leonis Navigation)[15] is more in point, where the Court explained: Petitioners never moved for a reconsideration of this Order regarding the voluntariness of their payment to Sonia, as well as the dismissal with prejudice and the concomitant termination of the case. However, petitioners argued that the finality of the case did not render the petition for certiorari before the CA moot and academic. On this point, we agree with petitioners. In the landmark case of St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC,[16] we ruled that judicial review of decisions of the NLRC is sought via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and the petition should be filed before the CA, following the strict observance of the hierarchy of courts. Under Rule 65, Section 4,[17] petitioners are allowed sixty (60) days from notice of the assailed order or resolution within which to file the petition. Thus, although the petition was not filed within the 10-day period, petitioners seasonably filed their petition for certiorari before the CA within the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 65. Further, a petition for certiorari does not normally include an inquiry into the correctness of its evaluation of the evidence. Errors of judgment, as distinguished from errors of jurisdiction, are not within the province of a special civil action for certiorari, which is merely confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. It is, thus, incumbent upon petitioners to satisfactorily establish that the NLRC acted capriciously and whimsically in order that the extraordinary writ of certiorari will lie. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and it must be shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or despotically.[18] (Emphasis supplied) Adhering to the pronouncement in Leonis Navigation, the Court, in Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Legaspi (Transmarine),[19] held that the satisfaction of the monetary award by the employer did not render the petition for certiorari moot before the CA. In Transmarine, pursuant to a writ of execution issued, the employer ship-owner/manning agency and the complaining seafarer agreed to a settlement of the judgment award. It was, however, stipulated that the settlement shall be without prejudice to the pending petition for certiorari filed by the employer before the CA. It was further agreed that, in the event that the petition would be granted and the judgment award would be eventually reversed, whether in full or partially, the seafarer shall return all amounts in excess of what he would be entitled to and the employer elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59612 4/7