LOIDA SHAUF and JACOB SHAUF vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 90314 November 27, 1990

FACTS:
Petitioner, Loida Shauf, a Filipino by origin and married to an American who is a member of
the US Air Force, was rejected for a position of Guidance Counselor in the Base Education
Office at Clark Air Base. According to applicable regulations, where there are qualified
dependents of military or civilian personnel, who are locally available, appointments to
positions shall be limited to the dependents. As per records, she possessed all the
qualifications for the job at that time. Instead of hiring Shauf, however, one Mr. Isakson was
selected for the position who was not a dependent of a military or civilian personnel. In
addition, Mr. Isakson apparently lacked certain qualifications.

Shauf was offered a temporary position as a temporary Assistant Education Adviser for a 180-
day period with the condition that if a vacancy occurs, she will be automatically selected to
fill the vacancy. Shauf accepted the offer. During that time, Mrs. Mary Abalateo’s was about
to vacate her position. But Mrs. Abalateo’s appointment was extended. Thus, Shauf was never
appointed to said position. She claims that the Abalateo’s stay was extended indefinitely to
deny her the appointment as retaliation for the complaint that she filed against Persi. Persi
denies this allegation. He claims it was a joint decision of the management & it was in
accordance of with the applicable regulation.

By reason of her non-selection, she filed a complaint for damages and an equal employment
opportunity complaint against private respondents, Don Detwiler (civillian personnel officer)
and Anthony Persi (Education Director), for alleged discrimination by reason of her sex
(female), color (brown) and national origin (Filipino by birth).

RTC ruled in favor of Shauf. Both parties appealed to the CA. Shauf prayed for the increase
of the damages to be collected from defendants. Defendants on the other hand, continued
using the defense that they are immune from suit for acts done/statements made by them in
performance of their official governmental functions pursuant to RP-US Military Bases
Agreement of 1947. CA reversed RTC’s decision. According to the CA, defendants are
immune from suit.

Shauf claims that the respondents are being sued in their private capacity thus this is not a suit
against the US government which would require consent. Respondents still maintain their
immunity from suit. They further claim that the rule allowing suits against public officers &
employees for criminal & unauthorized acts is applicable only in the Philippines & is not part
of international law.

ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondents are immune from suit being officers of the US Armed
Forces

HELD:
No, the respondents cannot rely on the US blanket of diplomatic immunity for all its acts or
the acts of its agents in the Philippines. Private respondents are personally liable in
indemnifying petitioner Shauf.
While the doctrine of immunity is also applicable to complaints filed against state officials, it
only contemplates acts done in their official capacity. This does not cover acts contrary to law
& injurious to the rights of the plaintiff. When an official acts in a manner that invades or
violates the personal & property rights of another, the aggrieved party may sue the official &
such suit will not be a suit against the state. The doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply
where the public official is being sued in his private & personal capacity as an ordinary
citizen.

The discrimination is very evident. Shauf was not considered for the position even if she was
previously employed as a Guidance Counselor at the Clark Airbase. The person appointed
was not even qualified for that position and that person kept the position despite orders from
the US Civil Service Commission for his removal. Extension of Abalateo’s services is another
proof. She was not appointed even if US officials found her highly qualified for the position.
Shauf has proven that discrimination did occur. Thus, Detwiler and Persi should be
accountable. Though Shauf is entitled to damages, she should not be paid for the supposedly
unearned income had she been hired as a Guidance Counselor.