G. R. No. 179177 9 of 29 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179177.htm Guerrero, withdrew his appearance as counsel for said parties on 18 August 2003. Petitioner Nisda moved, on 4 September 2003, for the issuance of a writ of execution based on the allegation that respondent ADAMS, Nobel, and Guerrero failed to appeal to the NLRC the 23 July 2003 Decision of the Labor Arbiter. [39] Petitioner Nisda next filed, on 22 September 2003, a Manifestation calling the attention of the Labor Arbiter to the fact that the dispositive portion of the decision by pure inadvertence alone, did not mention the resolved merits in the body of the decision itself adjudging Sea Serve Maritime Agency with joint and several liability with the rest of the [40] Respondents to Complainants monetary awards. Acting on petitioner Nisdas Manifestation, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order dated 30 September 2003, amending the fallo of the 23 July 2003 Decision to add the name of respondent Sea Serve to the list of those jointly and severally liable for petitioner Nisdas money claims. Atty. Cortez filed another notice, on 29 September 2003, which reiterated his withdrawal as counsel of record for respondent ADAMS, Nobel, and Guerrero. On 10 October 2003, respondent Sea Serve received a copy of the 30 September 2003 Order of the Labor Arbiter amending the dispositive portion of her 23 July 2003 Decision. Apparently, it was only on said date that respondent Sea Serve learned of the adverse decision rendered against it and its foreign principal, respondent ADAMS. Alarmed, on 14 October 2003, Atty. Jedrek C. Ng (Atty. Ng), counsel of respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS, personally went to the office of the Labor Arbiter Fatima JambaroFranco to verify the records of the case x x x [and] discovered that through mistake, the [41] respondent-appellant [Sea Serve] was not furnished a copy of the Decision x x x. On 20 October 2003, six days after obtaining a copy of the 23 July 2003 Decision of the Labor Arbiter, respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS filed their Memorandum of Appeal before the NLRC. They maintained that petitioner Nisdas heart ailment was diagnosed long after his 7 August 2001 POEA-SEC expired on 21 September 2002, so he was no longer entitled to disability benefits under said contract. Petitioner Nisda likewise could not claim any benefits under his 30 August 2001 employment contract, which he signed directly with 1/28/2016 1:07 PM