Maersk Filipinas Crewing v. Mesina
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Nelson E. Mesina was employed as a steward on board the vessel "Sealand Innovator" by petitioners Maersk Filipinas Crewing Inc. and Maersk Services, Ltd. He was declared fit for sea duties during his Pre-Employment Medical Examination. His duties included cooking, serving meals, laundry, and washing decks using strong detergents and chemicals. In June 2005, he developed itchiness and rashes, which worsened by October 2005, leading to his medical repatriation. He was treated by the company-designated physician, Dr. Natalio Alegre II, for eight months, undergoing phototherapy. Dr. Alegre diagnosed him with psoriasis, an auto-immune ailment not work-related, and thus assessed no disability. Procedural History: Aggrieved, Mesina sought a second opinion from Dr. Glenda Anastacio-Fugoso, a dermatologist, who certified that Mesina had Psoriasis Vulgaris, a disease aggravated by work, and that he was disabled, with 80% of his body affected. Due to conflicting medical findings, the parties pursued grievance machinery under their CBA, which failed to yield a settlement. Mesina then filed a complaint for total disability benefits, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of Mesina, finding his illness reasonably connected to his work and awarding US$75,000.00 in total disability benefits. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA, giving more weight to Dr. Alegre's certification and finding no substantial evidence of work aggravation. The Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the LA's decision, finding that the probability of work environment factors causing the illness warranted resolving doubt in favor of the seafarer and that Mesina was permanently and totally disabled. The Petition: Petitioners assail the CA's decision, arguing that its conclusions were based on mistaken inferences, contrary to the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and CBA, and that the CA erred in reversing the NLRC's decision without grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent is entitled to permanent total disability benefits. Whether the respondent's illness, psoriasis, is work-related and compensable. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the NLRC's decision.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated October 27, 2011, and Resolution dated February 29, 2012, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 113470 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to permanent total disability benefits: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the respondent is entitled to permanent total disability benefits. Permanent disability is defined as the inability to perform one's job for more than 120 days, while total disability means the disablement to earn wages in the same or similar kind of work. The respondent was medically repatriated on October 7, 2005, and remained unable to work for more than 120 days. Despite the absence of a contagious nature, the repulsive physical manifestation, chronic nature, lack of long-term cure, and potential vulnerability to other diseases associated with psoriasis render him unable to pursue his customary work as a seaman. This permanent disability effectively became total in nature, entitling him to the benefits. On whether the respondent's illness, psoriasis, is work-related and compensable: The Court held that the respondent's psoriasis is compensable. While not listed as an occupational disease in the POEA-SEC, Section 20(B)(4) provides a disputable presumption that illnesses not listed are work-related. The claimant must present substantial evidence showing a causal connection or increased risk due to working conditions. The Court gave greater weight to the certification of Dr. Fugoso, a dermatologist, who stated that the disease was aggravated by stress, drug intake, or alcohol, and that the respondent was disabled. Dr. Alegre's conclusion that it was not work-related was deemed inconclusive as he failed to consider potential environmental factors and his specialization was General Surgery, not dermatology. The Court found that the respondent's exposure to strong detergents, chemicals, stress, and climate changes, coupled with Dr. Fugoso's findings, established a reasonable connection between his work and the onset of psoriasis. On whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the NLRC's decision: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA. The CA correctly reinstated the LA's decision after finding that the NLRC erred in giving more weight to the company-designated physician's opinion over the seafarer's physician, especially when the latter was a specialist in dermatology. The CA's reasoning that doubt should be resolved in favor of the seafarer, given the probability of work environment factors contributing to the illness, was consistent with the protective intent of the POEA-SEC. The Court reiterated that the company physician's assessment is not irrefutable and that the seafarer has the right to seek a second opinion, and the findings of other competent medical professionals should be evaluated.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer suffering from an illness not listed in the POEA-SEC is disputably presumed to have contracted it due to work, and the claimant only needs to present substantial evidence to establish a causal connection between the nature of employment and the illness, or that the risk of contracting the illness was increased by working conditions. The diagnosis of the company-designated physician is not conclusive, and the seafarer's right to seek a second opinion from their own physician is recognized, with the findings of a dermatologist being given greater weight in cases involving skin diseases.