SHAUF vs. CA

G.R. No. 90314

 November 27, 1990

Penned by: REGALADO, J.

FACTS:

Petitioner Loida Q. Shauf, a Filipino by origin

o rigin and married to an American working at the US
Airforce applied for a vacant position of Guidance
Guidanc e Counselor twice in the Base Edu
Education
cation Office
at the Clark Air Base, for which she is eminently qualified.

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 nationality and
sex.

Petitioner was then offered a temporary position as a temporary

tempo rary Assistant Education Adviser for
180-days with the condition that if a vacancy
v acancy occurs, she will be automatically selected to fill the
vacancy. But if no vacancy
vacan cy occurs after the period, she will be released but will be selected to fill
a future vacancy in case of her availability.

Shauf accepted the offer but she was never appointed to her prayed position. She claims that the
denial of her the appointment is a consequence of a conflict between her and other employees.

Shauf filed for damages and other relief in different courts.

Consequently, the RTC ruled in favor of Shauf.

On appeal, Shauf prayed for the increase of the damages to be collected from defendants.
Defendants on the other hand, continued using the defense that the
theyy are immune from suit for
actions made by them in performance of their official governmental functions pursuant to RP-US
Military Bases Agreement of 1947.

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the defendants stating that they aare
re immune from suit.

Shauf appealed claiming that the respondents are being sued in their private capacity hence, not a
suit against the United States government which would require consent.

ISSUE:

WON private respondents are immune from suit in view of their being
bein g officers of the Armed
Forces of United States.
 

HELD:

 No. The private respondents were sued in their private personal capacity and the acts of the
defendant in rejecting the appointment were discriminatory which does
do es not enable her to use
u se the
defense of immunity from suit.