Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2



G.R. NO. 90314, NOVEMBER 27, 1990


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

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. 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.
Hence this petition for review on certiorari.

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


No, they are not immune. 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 are 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.