G.R. No. 200837 , June 5, 2013
MAERSK FILIPINAS CREWING INC./MAERSK SERVICES LTD., AND/OR MR. JEROME DELOS ANGELES, Petitioners, vs. NELSON E. MESINA, Respondent.

FACTS

Nelson E. Mesina (respondent) was employed by Maersk Filipinas Crewing Inc. as a steward on board the vessel “Sealand Innovator” on March 29, 2005, and boarded on May 3, 2005, after being declared fit for sea duties. His duties involved kitchen services, cleaning, laundry, and washing-painting decks using special soap and chemicals. In June 2005, he developed itchiness and skin rashes. By October 2005, due to the severity of the rashes and his food-handling role, he was medically repatriated. Upon arrival, he was treated by the company-designated physician, Dr. Natalio Alegre II, for eight months. On June 23, 2006, Dr. Alegre diagnosed him with psoriasis, declared it an auto-immune ailment not work-related, and thus assessed no disability under the POEA contract. The petitioners consequently stopped his benefits. The respondent then consulted Dr. Glenda Anastacio-Fugoso, who certified on February 20, 2007, that his Psoriasis Vulgaris was aggravated by stress and that he was presently disabled, with 80% of his body affected. Due to conflicting medical opinions and a failed grievance proceeding, the respondent filed a complaint for total disability benefits, damages, and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent’s psoriasis is compensable as a work-related illness entitling him to total and permanent disability benefits.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision awarding total disability benefits. The Court ruled that psoriasis, while not listed as an occupational disease under the POEA-SEC, is disputably presumed work-related under Section 20(B)(4) of the contract. The petitioners failed to overcome this presumption. The Court found that the nature of the respondent’s work—involving constant exposure to strong detergents, fabric conditioners, and chemicals, coupled with the stress of his duties—could have triggered or aggravated his condition. The company-designated physician’s categorical declaration that the illness was “not work-related” was insufficient, as it lacked a detailed medical explanation to refute the reasonable connection between the work conditions and the disease. Furthermore, the respondent’s condition, which covered 80% of his body and persisted despite eight months of treatment with no known cure, rendered him permanently and totally disabled as he could no longer perform his work as a seafarer. The award of US$75,000.00 as total disability benefits and attorney’s fees was affirmed.