Satisfaction of Judgment Pursuant to a Writ of Execution will not Render the Certiorari Moot and Academic

Satisfaction of judgment by the company of the decision of the NLRC pursuant to a writ of execution will not render the petition for certiorari filed moot and academic.

Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc., et al. Vs. Mauricio G. Picar, Jr.
G.R. No. 209383, March 11, 2015

Facts:

Respondent Picar was employed by petitioner Sealion Shipping Limited -United Kingdom through its local manning agent Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc. (petitioners), as Chief Cook continuously for several contracts until his last employment contract in 2010, on board the vessel, “MV Toisa Paladin.”

Re-Numbered Labor Code 2017 by Atty. Elvin B. Villanueva

Picar experienced high fever, chilling, lumbar back pain, and difficulty in urinating accompanied with blood. He was referred for medical treatment to the Maritime Medical Center PTE, Ltd in Singapore (MMC). He was diagnosed with Urinary Tract Infection (UTI)and Renal Calculus. After his check-up, he was required to go back to the vessel and take a rest. Later, he was brought back to MMC where he was confined until October 1, 2010. On October 2, 2010, he was repatriated.

Upon his arrival in Manila, Picar was referred to Dr. Natalio G. Alegre (Dr. Alegre) at St. Luke’s Medical Center (SLMC). He underwent sonography of his kidneys and urinary bladder, which showed “renal cyst on his right kidney; calyceal lithiasis, right; and normal urinary bladder; slightly enlarged prostate gland was noted.” Dr. Alegre repeatedly recommended that he undergo extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for the dissolution of his right kidney stone.

On February 23, 2011, Picar consulted Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo (Dr. Vicaldo) who also diagnosed him to be suffering from Right Renal Calculus, Essential Hypertension. Dr. Vicaldo considered his illness as work aggravated/related and declared him unfit to resume work as a seafarer in any capacity.

Picar then filed a complaint for permanent disability compensation, balance of sick wages, reimbursement of medical expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

LA Ruling:

The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered judgment7 in favor of Picar. The LA found that his illness was work-related and that the nature of his work as a chief cook contributed to the aggravation of his condition.

NLRC Ruling:

On appeal, the NLRC affirmed in toto the decision of the LA. The NLRC ruled that Picar’s disability was permanent as he was totally unable to perform his job for more than 120 days from his repatriation. In support of its ruling, it cited the case of Remigio vs. NLRC where it was held that if an employee was unable to perform his customary job for more than 120 days and did not come within the coverage of Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensability (which, in more detailed manner, describes what constitutes temporary total disability), then the said employee undoubtedly suffered from permanent total disability regardless of whether or not he lost the use of any part of his body.

Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the matter to the CA.

In the meantime, Picar moved for the execution of the LA decision. The LA issued a Writ of Execution for the enforcement and full satisfaction of its decision. Consequently, petitioners paid the judgment award as evidenced by the Satisfaction of Judgment pursuant to a Writ of Execution with Acknowledgment Receipt executed by the NLRC-NCR Sheriff.

CA Ruling:

The CA dismissed the petition. Citing the case of Career Philippines Ship Management, Inc. vs. Madjus, the CA ruled that the payment by petitioners of the judgment award constituted an amicable settlement that had rendered the petition moot and academic.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the said decision, but it was denied. Hence, the petition with SC.

Issue/s:

Whether or not the petition for certiorari was rendered moot and academic with the satisfaction of the judgment award.

SC Ruling:

The SC ruled in favor of petitioners holding that petition for certiorari before the CA was not rendered moot and academic.

The satisfaction of the judgment award in compliance with the writ of execution issued by the LA. The CA cited the case of Career Philippines to support its holding but the SC did not find application in this case.

Career Philippines was resolved on equitable considerations. In the said case, while 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 the SC, respondent seafarer could no longer pursue other claims, including for interests that may accrue during the pendency of the case. Thus, it was held that the LA and the CA could not be faulted for interpreting petitioner’s “conditional settlement” to be tantamount to an amicable settlement of the case resulting in the mootness of the petition for certiorari.

In this case, no such document was executed between the parties. The payment of the judgment award without prejudice by petitioners required no obligations whatsoever on the part of Picar.

Petitioners satisfied the judgment award in strict compliance with a duly issued writ of execution and pursuant to terms fair to both parties. Thus, the equitable ruling in Career Philippines would certainly be unfair to petitioners in this case as they still have a remedy under the rules. The CA, therefore, was in error in dismissing the petition for being moot and academic.