6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly benefits and attorney's fees.[26] The NLRC found that the records are bereft of anything that would support petitioners' claim that the company-designated physician indeed gave Grade 11 disability rating, and thus, deemed that there was no assessment made on him.[27] In view thereof, the NLRC ruled that Pelagio's disability went beyond 240 days without a declaration that he is fit to resume work or an assessment of disability rating, and as such, he is already entitled to permanent total disability benefits as stated under the CBA.[28] Petitioners moved for reconsideration,[29] which was, however, dismissed in a Resolution[30] dated October 4, 2011. Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari[31] before the CA, docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 122771. During the pendency of the certiorari proceedings before the CA, the parties executed a Satisfaction of Judgment [32] dated December 21, 2011 stating that petitioners had already given Pelagio the amount of P3,313,772.00 as full and complete satisfaction of the NLRC ruling. However, it is likewise stated therein that such satisfaction of judgment "is without prejudice to [petitioners'] petition for certiorari pending with the [CA] x x x," and that the same was "being made only to prevent imminent execution being undertaken by the NLRC and [Pelagio]."[33] On even date, Pelagio likewise executed a Receipt of Paymene[34] acknowledging receipt of the aforesaid amount, but recognizing that such payment is "understood to be without prejudice to the pending petition for certiorari filed by [petitioners] before the [CA]."[35] Pelagio further executed an Affidavit of Claimant[36] stating that he "understand[s] that payment is hereby being made by the shipowners/manning agents to [him] only to prevent further execution proceedings that [he has] initiated with the NLRC;" and that he "recognize[s] the NLRC's jurisdiction on Restitution proceedings, in case of a reversal of judgment by the Higher Courts x x x."[37] On February 10, 2012, the NLRC issued an Order[38] approving the settlement and considered the case closed and terminated. The CA Ruling In a Decision[39] dated December 21, 2012, the CA dismissed the certiorari petition, ruling that the Satisfaction of Judgment executed by the parties is in the nature of a compromise agreement, which was properly approved by the NLRC, as it did not contravene any law, morals, public policy, or public order.[40] In this regard, the CA held that the issues raised in the petition had already been rendered moot and academic, and as such, the petition must be dismissed without going into the merits of the case.[41] Petitioners moved for reconsideration[42] but was denied in a Resolution[43] dated February 17, 2014; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61185 3/12