affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling by Decision9[9] of March 28, 2008. It held that respondent need not have a “sedentary” job for it to acquire kidney ailment and he could not be said to have concealed it, for petitioner’s own physician diagnosed and treated him. Respecting respondent’s failure to report his illness upon repatriation, the NLRC held that, at most, this would only result in the forfeiture of his sickness allowance.   Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution10[10] of June 27, 2008, it appealed to the Court of Appeals, at the same time applying for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).   Meanwhile, respondent filed on August 1, 2008 with the Labor Arbiter a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution11[11]. Believing that the execution of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision was imminent as its petition for injunctive relief was denied by the appellate court by Resolution12[12] of July 30, 2008, petitioner filed before the Labor Arbiter on August 20, 2008 a pleading entitled “Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment Award with Urgent Motion to Cancel Appeal Bond All 9 Id. at 489 – 497. Penned by Commissioner Romeo L. Go and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco. [9] 10 [10] Id. at 530-531. Penned by Commissioner Romeo L. Go and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco. 11 [11] Id. at 536-539. 12 [12] CA rollo, pp. 335-336. . Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr., and Jose C. Reyes, Jr.