LOIDA Q.

SHAUF AND JACOB SHAUF

VS.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DON E. DETWILER
AND ANTHONY PERSI

G.R. No. 90314              

November 27, 1990
FACTS:

Petitioner Loida Q. Shauf, is a Filipino by origin and married to an American who is a member of the United States Air Force was rejected for the position of Guidance
Counselor in the Base Education Office at Clark Air Base. According to applicable regulations, where qualified dependents of military or civilian personnel are locally available
for appointment to positions in foreign areas which are designated for U.S. citizen occupancy and for which recruitment outside the current work force is appropriate,
appointment to the position will be limited to such dependents. Shauf possessed all the qualifications, however, a certain Mr. Edward B. Isakson who was not a dependent of a
military or civilian personnel was selected for the position. Feeling aggrieved of the shabby treatment, Shauf questioned the qualifications of Isakson and the U.S. Civil Service
Commission thereafter ordered his removal from the office.

In connection with said complaint, and by reason of her credentials, she was offered a temporary position of Assistant Education Adviser for 180 days with the condition
that if a vacancy occurs in a permanent position she will be automatically selected. Shauf accepted the offer. During that time, Mrs. Mary Abalateo was about to vacate her
permanent GS 1710-9 position. But she was indefinitely extended by Detwiler and Shauf was never appointed to the said position. By reason of her nonselection, petitioner
filed an equal employment opportunity complaint and damages against Don Detwiler (civilian personnel officer) and Anthony Persi (Education Director) for alleged
discrimination against her by reason of her national origin (Filipino by birth), color (brown) and sex (female). Private respondents, filed a motion to dismiss the case on the
ground that as officers of the United States Armed Forces performing official government functions in accordance with the powers vested in them under the Philippine-
American Military bases Agreement, they are immune from suit and further argued doctrine of state immunity which appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its
consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties
ISSUE:

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

RULING:
No, respondents are not immune from suit as they are being sued in their private capacity for
discriminatory acts performed beyond their authority. The acts complained were done by respondents
while administering the civil service laws of the United States. The States authorize only legal acts by its
officers. Unauthorized acts of government officials 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.