6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 4. That I understand that the conditional payment of the judgment award is without prejudice to the shipowners/manning agents' Petition for Certiorari pending with the Court of Appeals docketed as CA GR SP No. 124685 x x x; 5. That I understand that the payment of the judgment award x x x includes all my past, present and future expenses and claims, and all kinds of benefits due to me under the POEA employment contract and all collective bargaining agreements and all labor laws and regulations, civil law or any other law whatsoever and all damages, pains and sufferings in connection with my claim; 6. That I have no further claims whatsoever in any theory of law against the Owners of MV 'NIKOMARIN' because of the payment made to me. That I certify and warrant that I will not file any complaint or prosecute any suit or action in the Philippines, Panama, Japan or any other country against the shipowners and/or the released parties herein after receiving the payment of US$66,000.00 or its peso equivalent x x x.[17] (Emphasis in the original) On November 29, 2012, the CA issued the assailed Decision, containing the following pronouncement: Before proceeding, this Court must tackle the issue raised by private respondent that the instant petition has already been rendered moot and academic by virtue of the Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment, in relation to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Career Phils. Shipmanagement, Inc. vs. Madjus.[18] Private respondent's contention must be rejected. First, in Career Phils. Shipmanagement, the Supreme Court no longer passed upon the merits of the case because of the concurrence between the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. The Supreme Court, not being a trier of facts and taking into account the parallel findings of the two administrative offices specializing in Labor Cases, invoked the doctrine of finality of judgment with respect to factual findings of administrative bodies. The same does not hold true in the instant case, as the NLRC had an opposing view vis-a-vis that of the Labor Arbiter. Second, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the conditional settlement of the judgment in Career Phils. Shipmanagement. However, the Supreme Court opted to render the action therein moot and academic due to the fact that part of the condition is a prohibition on the part of the seafarer to pursue further claims. It basically rendered the judgment final and executory as against the seafarer but not against the employer. The same does not obtain in the present action. Private respondent still retains the right to judicial recourse in the event the instant petition is granted. Third, Article 19 of the Civil Code exhorts: '[E]very person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.' Accordingly, private respondent was expected to honor his covenant with petitioners elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62635 6/14