CHARLONNE KEITH LACSON, PETITIONER, VS. RCCL CREW MANAGEMENT INC., ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., AND GERARDO ANTONIO BORROMEO, RESPONDENTS.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 270817
- Promulgated: 2025-01-27
- Ponente: HERNANDO, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Charlonne Keith Lacson (petitioner) was employed by RCCL Management Crew Inc. (RCCL) as an AZ Commis 2 for six months starting January 30, 2018. His duties involved food preparation and kitchen sanitation, exposing him to various cleaning chemicals. After a few months, he developed persistent skin itching, rashes, and blisters, which a shore physician/dermatologist in Italy diagnosed as allergic dermatitis. He was medically repatriated on August 20, 2018, and subsequently diagnosed with Contact Dermatitis with Secondary Bacterial Infection by the company-designated physician, Shiphealth, Inc. Shiphealth provided treatment until January 17, 2019, after which it issued a Final Report stating his final diagnosis was "Nummular Eczema, resolved" and that he was "cleared by Dermatology service for the condition referred." Shiphealth also issued a "fit for duty" declaration on January 24, 2019. However, petitioner's rashes persisted, leading him to consult other dermatologists. On February 6, 2019, a dermatologist at Seamen's Hospital diagnosed him with Hand Dermatitis RIO Allergic Contact Dermatitis and declared him "UNFIT for duty." On February 20, 2019, Dr. Miguel Maralit diagnosed him with Dyshidrotic Eczema and Nummular Eczema, declaring him unfit to work in the kitchen and advising a transfer to another department. Petitioner then filed a complaint for permanent and total disability benefits, which the Labor Arbiter, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and Court of Appeals (CA) successively dismissed, upholding the company-designated physician's findings and assessment. ## Issues 1. Did the CA err in overlooking facts that would lead to a different conclusion regarding the work-relatedness of petitioner's illness? 2. Is the petitioner entitled to permanent and total disability benefits? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Court ruled that the **CA erred in overlooking undisputed facts** that would justify a different conclusion regarding the work-relatedness of petitioner's nummular eczema. The Court found that respondents failed to provide evidence to controvert the work-relatedness of petitioner's illness. While petitioner indicated "Yes" to allergies/anaphylaxis in his **Medical Certificate For Sea Service**, the specific comments clarified these were allergies to latex and nickel, not a general admission to allergies from chemicals. The records did not show petitioner's exposure to latex and nickel in his work. The Court reasoned that if petitioner had nummular eczema prior to employment, it would have been visible and he would not have been cleared for duty or employed in food preparation. Citing **Grace Marina Shipping Corp. v. Alarcon**, the Court affirmed that nummular eczema, triggered by direct exposure to cleaning agents and chemicals, as well as stress and climate changes inherent to a seafarer's work, can be work-related and compensable. The Court found a reasonable causal connection between the nature of petitioner's work as AZ Commis 2, which involved constant exposure to cleaning materials, and his eczema. **Issue 2:** The Court ruled that the **petitioner is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits**. The Final Report issued by Shiphealth on January 17, 2019, was deemed **not a complete and definite medical assessment** as required by law. It failed to provide a definitive declaration of petitioner's capacity to return to work or a categorical and final degree of his disability. Furthermore, respondents failed to prove that petitioner was furnished a copy of this Final Report within the 120/240-day periods. The Court reiterated that the issuance and conveyance of a final medical assessment to the seafarer are crucial. Citing **Grossman v. North Sea Marine Services Corp.**, the Court emphasized that a final assessment must properly inform the seafarer of the findings. The Final Report was addressed to the Crew Medical Case Manager and not the petitioner. The…
Keywords
Section 20 (A) 2010 POEA Standard Employment Contract, Rule X Section 2 Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation, Section 32 (A) 2010 POEA Standard Employment Contract, Rule 45 Rules of Court, Article 2208 New Civil Code, Republic Act No. 11641, Disputable Presumption of Work-Related Illness, 120/240 Day Rule, Final Medical Assessment Rule, Labour Law, Seafarer's Disability Benefits, Work-related Illness, Contract of Employment, Petition for Review on Certiorari, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Labor Arbiter, Permanent and Total Disability, Medical Repatriation, Company-designated Physician, Fit to Work Certification