Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution16[16] of January 27, 2009, petitioner interposed the present appeal.   Petitioner faults the appellate court for not deciding the case on the merits and instead dismissing it on the ground of mootness. It maintains that the NLRC Decision had not attained finality because it was tainted with grave abuse of discretion, hence, void; and that the express agreement between it and respondent as contained in the “Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment” should be respected, it having been executed in order to “reconcile the executory nature of public respondent’s decision while at the same time affirming the parties’ commitment to honor the Court of Appeals’ eventual judgment on the merits of the case.”   Petitioner goes on to take exception to the appellate court’s observation that the reservations included in the “Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment” was merely a safety net it imposed upon respondent, averring that at the time the document was drafted and signed, both parties were represented by their respective counsels and it was eventually approved by the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner adds that it can be considered that “respondent had the higher hand during the negotiations for the conditional satisfaction of judgment,” as it was “only compelled to forge the agreement by the imminence of execution”; and that as respondent wanted to immediately enjoy the judgment award, it was only “right and proper that he waives his right to claim further from petitioner,” the waiver to operate only in the 16 [16] Id. pp. 116-117. Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr., and Jose C. Reyes, Jr.