6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly terminating the case. This is because the Acknowledgment Receipt she signed when she received petitioners' payment was without prejudice to the final outcome of the petition for certiorari pending before the CA.[49] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) However, in Career Philippines Ship Management, Inc. v. Madjus[50] (Career Philippines), the Court made a seemingly contrary ruling from that in Leonis Navigation, holding that such an agreement is tantamount to an absolute amicable settlement, thus, rendering the certiorari petition before the CA dismissible for being moot and academic, viz.: In effect, while petitioner had the luxury of having other remedies available to it such as its petition for certiorari pending before the appellate court, and an eventual appeal to this Court, respondent, on the other hand, could no longer pursue other claims, including for interests that may accrue during the pendency of the case. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, it could not, at the time respondent moved for the execution of the Labor Arbiter's monetary awards, have been compelled to immediately pay the judgment award, for it had filed with the NLRC an appeal bond, intended to assure respondent that if he prevailed in the case, he would receive the money judgment in his favor upon the dismissal of the employer's appeal. The Labor Arbiter and the appellate court may not thus be faulted for interpreting petitioner's "conditional settlement" to be tantamount to an amicable settlement of the case resulting in the mootness of the petition for certiorari.[51] (Emphasis supplied, underscoring in the original) Fortunately, the Court had the opportunity to reconcile the ostensibly opposing pronouncements in the Leonis Navigation and Career Philippines cases in Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Legaspi,[52] (Philippine Transmarine) in this wise: In Career Philippines, believing that the execution of the LA Decision was imminent after its petition for injunctive relief was denied, the employer filed before the LA a pleading embodying a conditional satisfaction of judgment before the CA and, accordingly, paid the employee the monetary award in the LA decision. In the said pleading, the employer stated that the conditional satisfaction of the judgment award was without prejudice to its pending appeal before the CA and that it was being made only to prevent the imminent execution. The CA later dismissed the employer's petition for being moot and academic, noting that the decision of the LA had attained finality with the satisfaction of the judgment award. This Court affirmed the ruling of the CA, interpreting the "conditional settlement" to be tantamount to an amicable settlement of the case resulting in the mootness of the petition for certiorari, considering (i) that the employee could no longer pursue other claims, and (ii) that the employer could not have been compelled to immediately pay because it had filed an elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61185 5/12