Without Prejudice to the Pending Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals”13[13] (“Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment”) and accordingly paid respondent the monetary award as stated in the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. In said pleading, petitioner stated that the conditional satisfaction of the judgment award was without prejudice to its pending appeal before the Court of Appeals and that it was being made only to “prevent the imminent execution being undertaken by the NLRC and the complainant.”   The Labor Arbiter later issued an Order14[14] dated September 4, 2008 stating that the case had been amicably settled and was thus dismissed, without prejudice to the pending petition at the Court of Appeals.   By Decision15[15] dated November 28, 2008, the appellate court dismissed petitioner’s appeal for being moot and academic, noting that the Decision of the Labor Arbiter had attained finality with the satisfaction of the judgment award. On the “Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment,” it held that the same constituted petitioner’s voluntary payment of the judgment award, and the express reservations therein to the effect that it would not prejudice the outcome of the Petition for Certiorari only served as a “safety net imposed by Petitioners while allowing the Respondent Madjus to relinquish any future claims.” Its Motion for 13 [13] NLRC records, pp. 565-567 14 [14] Id. at 571. Penned by Labor Arbiter Madjayran H. Ajan. 15 [15] Rollo, pp. 81-93. Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr., and Jose C. Reyes, Jr.