FACTS

Loida Q. Shauf, a Filipino by origin and married to an American who is a member of the United States Air
Force, applied for the vacant position of Guidance Counselor in the Base Education Office at Clark Air
Base. Based on her credentials and work experience, she was highly qualified for the role however,
contrary to her expectations, petitioner was never appointed to the position. Aggrieved by the
treatment accorded to her, Shauf filed an equal employment opportunity complaint against Clark Air
Base by reason of her sex and nationality.

In a letter of the Department of the Air Force in Washington, D.C.,dated September 1, 1978 and
addressed to petitioner Loida Q. Shauf, the appeal rights of the latter from the Air Force decision were
enumerated as follows:

— You may appeal to the Civil Service Commission within 15 calendar days of receipt of the
decision. Your appeal should be addressed to the Civil Service Commission, Appeals Review
Board. The appeal and any representations in support thereof must be submitted in duplicate.

— In lieu of an appeal to the Commission you may file a civil action in an appropriate U.S.
District Court within 30 days of receipt of the decision.

— If you elect to appeal to the Commission's Appeals Review Board, you may file a civil action in
a U.S. District Court within 30 days of receipt of the Commission's final decision.

— A civil action may also be filed anytime after 180 days of the date of initial appeal to the
Commission, if a final decision has not been rendered.

In a Supplement to Partial Stipulation of Facts filed by parties, it was manifested to the trial court that an
appeal was lodged by counsel for petitioners before the Civil Service Commission, Appeals Review Board
from the decision of the Secretary of the Air Force in the discrimination case filed by petitioner Loida.
However, said appeal has not been decided even up until the judgement of the domestic court.

The defendant’s counterclaims were: first, they were immune from suit for acts done and statement
made by them in the performance of their official government functions pursuant to the Philippine-
American Military Bases Agreement and lastly, that the complaint should be dismissed for a) non-
exhaustion of administrative remedies; and b) lack of jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject
matter of the case. They likewise aver that only the United States (US) District Court has jurisdiction over
them.

ISSUE

The relevant issue pursuant to our course in this case is Whether or not the trial court erred in not
dismissing the complaint for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.

RULING

No, the private respondent’s contention cannot be given merit.

Private respondents postulate that petitioner failed to avail herself of her remedy under the United
States federal legislation on equality of opportunity for civilian employees, which is allegedly exclusive of
any other remedy under American law, let alone remedies before a foreign court and under a foreign
law such as the Civil Code of the Philippines.

It should be noted, however, that one exception to the doctrine of exhaustion is when administrative
remedy is merely persuasive. It is basic that remedial statutes are to be construed liberally. The term
"may," as used in the rules I’ve quoted earlier, is only permissive and not mandatory, and hence, the
court saw no reason why the so-called rules on the procedural options communicated to said petitioner
should depart from this fundamental. Petitioner Loida Shauf is not limited to these remedies, but is
entitled as a matter of plain and simple justice to choose that remedy, not otherwise prescribed, which
will best advance and protect her interests. There is, thus, nothing to enjoin her from seeking redress in
Philippine courts which should not be ousted of jurisdiction.

Were the agents and officials of US who were involved in this case protected by the doctrine of State’s
Immunity from Suit?

No, Private respondents Persi and Detwiler, in committing the acts complained against them, in effect,
violated the basic constitutional right of petitioner Loida Q. Shauf to earn a living which is very much an
integral aspect of the right to life.

A public officer may be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage he may have caused
by his act done with malice and in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction. In such
cases, the doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and may not be invoked as he is being sued in
his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. So the unauthorized acts of government officials
or officers are not acts of the State, and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights
have been invaded or violated by such acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the State
within the rule of immunity of the State from suit. For this, they should be held accountable.

where the public official is

Doctrine of Exhaustion
• Whenever there is an available administrative remedy provided by law, no judicial recourse can be
made until all such remedies have been availed of and exhausted
• An administrative decision must be appealed to the administrative superior up to the highest level
before elevating it to the Court for review
• Only applicable when there is competence on the part of the agency to act on the matter complained
of
• Doctrine need not be observed when it is not expressly required by law or when the statute providing
for the administrative remedy is merely permissive
Public officer in administrative law?????
 Isidro Cariño vs The Commission on Human Rights (204 SCRA 483)
FACTS:
On September 17, 1990, on a Monday (and a class day), 800 public school teachers in Manila did not
attend work and decided to stage a walkout to protest the alleged failure of public authorities to act
upon their grievance. In return, the Secretary of Education served them an order to return work within
24 hours or face dismissal. For failure to heed the return-to-work order, eight teachers were
administratively charged and preventively suspended from work for 90 days. The issue was then
investigated by DECS Secretary Isidro Cariño who later ordered the dismissal from the service of one
teacher and the suspension of three others.
DECS is what we know now as DEPED
 In August 2001, Republic Act 9155, otherwise called the Governance of Basic Education Act,
was passed transforming the name of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS)
to the Department of Education (DepEd)

A petition for certiorari against the petitioner was filed before the RTC but was subsequently dismissed.
Later, a petition on behalf of the teachers were filed in the Supreme court in attempt to nullify the
dismissal. The case was appealed to the Commission on Human Rights, further contending that the "
teachers who joined the strike" "were denied due process of law; and they should not have been
replaced without a chance to reply to the administrative charges;" hence, there had been a violation of
their civil and political rights which the Commission was empowered to investigate. CHR proceeded to
hear the case and thereafter issued an Order.
In the meantime, the Solicitor General filed an action for certiorari regarding the case and prohibiting
the CHR from continuing the case. However, the Commission on Human Rights has made clear its
intention "to hear and resolve the case.” Hence, CHR continued trial and issued a subpoena to Secretary
Cariño.
ISSUE: Whether or not administrative agency, which is CHR in this case, has the power to try and
determine certain cases such as the alleged human rights violation involving civil and political rights.
HELD:
No. The CHR is not competent to try such case as it has no judicial power. It can only investigate all
forms of human rights violation involving civil and political rights but it cannot and should not try and
decide on the merits and matters involved therein.
The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may
investigate, i.e., receive evidence and make findings of fact with regard to the claimed human rights
violations involving civil and political rights. But fact finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to
the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or official. The function of
receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function,
properly speaking.
As a result, the court barred CHR from proceeding with the trial.
You mentioned that the most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative
power is that it may investigate. Does this mean that to adjudicate is similar to investigate?
No, what the court provides is what it may concede to the Commission at most but nevertheless, to
adjudge is different from investigate. To investigate is to examine, inquire and obtain information and
one which ordinarily does not require a hearing. While to adjudicate is to decide, settle or decree, or to
sentence or condemn and Implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the entry of a judgment." In the
case at bar, the court ruled that the Commission having merely the power "to investigate," cannot and
should not "try and resolve on the merits"
If the CHR is not competent to try the case, what can it do then in relation to the plight of the teachers
in this case?
In relation to the issue in this case, the Constitution clearly grants to the Commission the power to
investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights. It can exercise that
power on its own initiative or on complaint of any person. It may exercise that power pursuant to such
rules of procedure as it may adopt and, in cases of violations of said rules, cite for contempt in
accordance with the Rules of Court. In
the course of any investigation conducted by it or under its authority, it may grant immunity from prosecution to any person
whose testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth.

It may also request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its
functions, in the conduct of its investigation or in extending such remedy as may be required by its
findings. But it cannot try and decide cases (or hear and determine causes) as courts of justice, or even
quasijudicial bodies do. To investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge. These terms have well understood
distinct meanings.

jurisdiction and functions of

the Education Secretary or the Civil Service Commission.
These are matters undoubtedly and clearly within the original jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Education, being within the scope of the disciplinary powers granted to him under the Civil Service
Law, and also, within the appellate jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.

As should at once be observed, only the first of the enumerated powers and functions bears any
resemblance to adjudication or adjudgment.

For clarification, does the doctrine of primary jurisdiction also apply in the exercise of quasi-legislative
powers or just in quasi-judicial?
(SMART vs. NTC)

PUBLIC OFFICE = right and duty conferred by the law.

o Rught
 o Aurthority
o Duty
o CREATED AND CONFERRED by the law

Fixed by law
Must be within the standard fixed by the 1987 Constitution
Public officers – high ranking public officials; lay down the strategic policies
Public employees -line staff; execute those policies
Presentation on the Civil Service Commission, Sandigaynbayan
Relevance and application of PO and PE in relation to that the public office is a public trust
CSC, SANDIGANBAYAN, Ombudsman
Fundamental Quasi-judicial power
How these powers are to be exercised particularly in the Agencies.

Doctrine of Qualified Administrative Agency.

 Administrative supervision: The executive will allow DILG to appoint official in its office.
 Administrative control: There will be substitution; wider discretion on the admin agency such as
on strategies.
 To ensure that all the law are faithfully.
 Policy direction, coordination among agencies.

Exam at 4:30PM
Flash ang questions
Doctrines
Handwritte. At least 10 yellow paper
Refocus camera. Focus while sitting.
2 cameras and then mirror sa likod if walang 2nd camera
2 hour exam