G.R. No. 270817 , January 27, 2025
CHARLONNE KEITH LACSON, PETITIONER, VS. RCCL CREW MANAGEMENT INC., ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., AND GERARDO ANTONIO BORROMEO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Charlonne Keith Lacson was employed by respondents as a commis (food preparation) on board the vessel Azamara Quest. His duties exposed him to cleaning chemicals. After a few months, he developed skin itching, rashes, and blisters. He was diagnosed with allergic dermatitis in Italy and was medically repatriated on August 20, 2018. In the Philippines, the company-designated physician, Shiphealth, Inc., diagnosed him with Contact Dermatitis with Secondary Bacterial Infection and treated him until January 17, 2019. On that date, Shiphealth issued a Final Report diagnosing “Nummular Eczema, resolved” and declared him fit for duty on January 24, 2019. Petitioner, however, consulted other doctors in February 2019 who declared him “UNFIT for duty” and diagnosed him with Hand Dermatitis and Dyshidrotic Eczema. On March 18, 2019, petitioner filed a complaint for permanent and total disability benefits. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with the third-doctor referral rule under the POEA-SEC. The NLRC and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. The CA held that the company doctor’s assessment was valid and that petitioner failed to prove his disability was permanent and total.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of petitioner’s claim for permanent and total disability benefits.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s rulings. The Court held that the company-designated physician’s assessment of “fit to work” was valid and binding. The assessment was issued on the 151st day from repatriation, which was within the allowed 240-day extended period for treatment. The Final Report contained a definite assessment of his condition (“resolved”) and a clear declaration of fitness for duty. Petitioner’s failure to refer the conflicting assessments to a third doctor, as required by the POEA-SEC, rendered the company doctor’s findings final and conclusive. Furthermore, the Court found that petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that his illness was work-related. He admitted in his pre-employment medical certificate to having a history of allergies to chemicals, which suggests a pre-existing condition. Nummular eczema is not a listed occupational disease, and petitioner did not successfully prove that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting it. Therefore, he is not entitled to disability benefits.