Loida Q. Shauf & Jacob Shauf, petitioners v. Hon. CA, Don E.

Detwiler & Anthony Persi, respondents

Second Division
Doctrine: official v. personal capacity
Keywords: void for overbreadth
Date: November 27, 1990
Ponente: Justice Regalado

Facts:
• 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, 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.
• 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. But if no vacancy occurs after 180 days, she will be released but will be selected to
fill a future vacancy if she’s available. 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.
• Shauf filed for damages and other relief in different venues such as the Civil Service Commission,
Appeals Review Board, Philippine Regional Trial Court, etc.
• RTC ruled in favor of Shauf ordering defendants to pay $39,662.49 as actual damages + 20% of
such amount as attorney’s fees + P100k as moral & exemplary damages.
• 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. They claim that
the Philippines does not have jurisdiction over the case because it was under the exclusive
jurisdiction of a US District Court. They likewise claim that petitioner failed to exhaust all
administrative remedies thus case should be dismissed. CA reversed RTC 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.
• Hence this petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: WON private respondents are immune from suit being officers of the US Armed Forces

Held:
No, they are not immune.
WHEREFORE, the challenged decision and resolution of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
17932 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Private respondents are hereby ORDERED, jointly and
severally, to pay petitioners the sum of P100,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as and for attorney's
fees, and the costs of suit.

Ratio:
• They state that the doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and may not be invoked where
the public official is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The
cloak of protection afforded the officers and agents of the government is removed the moment
they are sued in their individual capacity. This situation usually arises where the public official
acts without authority or in excess of the powers vested in him.
• It is a well-settled principle of law that a public official 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
• Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications vs. Aligaen Inasmuch as the State authorizes only
legal acts by its officers, 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. In the same tenor, it has been said that an action at law
or suit in equity against a State officer or the director of a State department on the ground that,
while claiming to act for the State, he violates or invades the personal and property rights of the
plaintiff, under an unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authority which he does not
have, is not a suit against the State within the constitutional provision that the State may not be
sued without its consent."The rationale for this ruling is that the doctrine of state immunity
cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice
• In the case at bar, there is nothing in the record which suggests any arbitrary, irregular or
abusive conduct or motive on the part of the trial judge in ruling that private respondents
committed acts of discrimination for which they should be held personally liable.
• There is ample evidence to sustain plaintiffs' complaint that plaintiff Loida Q. Shauf was refused
appointment as Guidance Counselor by the defendants on account of her sex, color and origin.
• She received a Master of Arts Degree from the University of Santo Tomas, Manila, in 1971 and
has completed 34 semester hours in psychology?guidance and 25 quarter hours in human
behavioral science. She has also completed all course work in human behavior and counselling
psychology for a doctoral degree. She is a civil service eligible. More important, she had
functioned as a Guidance Counselor at the Clark Air Base at the GS-1710-9 level for
approximately four years at the time she applied for the same position in 1976.
• In filling the vacant position of Guidance Counselor, defendant Persi did not even consider the
application of plaintiff Loida Q. Shauf, but referred the vacancy to CORRO which appointed
Edward B. Isakson who was not eligible to the position.
• Article XIII, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution provides that the State shall afford full protection
to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and
equality of employment opportunities for all. This is a carry-over from Article II, Section 9, of the
1973 Constitution ensuring equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed..
• There is no doubt that private respondents Persi and Detwiler, in committing the acts
complained of have, 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. For this, they should be
held accountable
• Respondents alleged that petitioner Loida Q. Shauf 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.
• SC: Petitioner Loida Q. Shauf is not limited to these remedies, but is entitled as a matter of plain
and simple justice to choose that remedy, not otherwise proscribed, 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 on the dubious and inconclusive
representations of private respondents on that score.