G. R. No. 179177 10 of 29 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179177.htm respondent ADAMS, and which had no force and effect in this jurisdiction absent the prior approval of the POEA. [42] Petitioner Nisda later on filed a Motion for Immediate Remand for Execution on the argument that the joint appeal filed by respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS was deemed not perfected for lack of the requisite appeal bond. He cited the 3 November 2003 [43] Memorandum issued by then NLRC Chairperson Roy Seeres stating that the Acropolis Central Guaranty Corporation, the surety company that posted the appeal bond for respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS, was not authorized to transact business in courts all over the Philippines. [44] The Third Division of the NLRC promulgated its Decision on 14 May 2004, ruling in favor of respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS, thereby reversing the Labor Arbiters Decision dated 23 July 2003. The dispositive portion of the subject Decision reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: a) dismissing the instant complaint against respondent-appellant Sea Serve Maritime Agency; b) denying the claims of complainant Carlos N. Nisda for disability benefits; and c) upholding respondent Khalifa A. Algosaibi Diving Marine Services payment of the amounts of US$4,389.40 and US$5,997.33, to the Makati Medical Center and Makati Heart Foundation, respectively, as payment for the hospital expenses of complainant. The NLRC gave due course to the joint appeal filed by respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS, since there was substantial compliance with the rules on appeal, to wit: In the case at bar, the surety bond issued by Acropolis Central Guarantee Corporation was posted on October 17, 2003, or prior to the issuance of the Memorandum dated November 3, 2003, issued by the NLRC Chairman depriving Acropolis of its accreditation. Respondents cannot be faulted for this unexpected and supervening development, and to pin the blame on them would be tantamount to putting a premium on technicalities and deprive them of procedural due process. Besides, the issue has since become moot and academic, inasmuch as respondents-appellants have complied and transferred its surety bond to a duly authorized bonding company, i.e., South Sea Surety & [45] Guarantee Insurance Co., Inc. Anent the substantive matter of the appeal, the NLRC initially ruled that respondent Sea Serve could not be held liable with respondent ADAMS for the claim of petitioner 1/28/2016 1:07 PM