6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly disregarded by the NLRC in relation to all other evidence on record. The CA can grant a petition when the factual findings complained of are not supported by the evidence on record; when it is necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice; when the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the LA; and when necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case. Thus, contrary to the contention of petitioner, the CA can review the finding of facts of the NLRC and the evidence of the parties to determine whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion x x x.[41] Second, petitioner asserts that the CA "has committed palpable error and grave abuse of discretion when it did not dismiss the petition of respondents under Rule 65, although the petition is already rendered moot and academic considering that respondents had already fully settled the judgment award of this case at the level of the Honorable Labor Arbiter a quo during the time that this case is under pre-execution proceedings."[42] The Court does not agree. The petition for certiorari filed by respondents with the CA was not rendered moot and academic by their satisfaction of the judgment award in compliance with the writ of execution issued by the LA. The case of Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Madjus,[43] cited by petitioner, finds no application in the present case. In the said case, while the petitioner employer had the luxury of having other remedies available to it such as its petition for certiorari pending before the CA and an eventual appeal to this Court, the respondent seafarer, in consideration of the satisfaction of judgment made by his employer, was made to execute an affidavit where he undertook that he will no longer pursue other claims after receiving payment arising from his employer's satisfaction of the judgment award. For equitable considerations, this Court held that the LA and the CA could not be faulted for interpreting the employer's "conditional settlement" to be tantamount to an amicable settlement of the case resulting in the mootness of the petition for certiorari filed by the employer before the CA.[44] In the instant case, however, the records at hand show that no form of settlement was executed between the parties. Respondents' payment of the judgment award, without prejudice, required no obligations whatsoever on the part of petitioner. The satisfaction of the judgment award may not be considered as an amicable settlement between the parties as it was simply made in strict compliance with or wholly by virtue of satisfying a duly issued writ of execution. Thus, the equitable ruling in Career Philippines, may not be made to apply in the present case, otherwise, it would be unfair to respondents because it would prevent them from availing of the remedies available to them under the Rules of Court, such as the petition for certiorari they filed with the CA. Having disposed of the procedural matters, the Court will now proceed to address the substantive issues in the instant petition. The merits of the present case should be resolved taking into consideration the parties' contract as well as the prevailing law and rules at the time that petitioner was employed. In this regard, it settled that while the seafarer and his employer are elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63251 6/14