SHAUF V COURT OF APPEALS

REGALADO; November 27, 1990

FACTS
Petitioner Loida Q. Shauf, a Filipino by origin and marriedto an American who is a member of the United States AirForce,
applied for the vacant position of GuidanceCounselor, GS 1710-9, in the Base Education Office atClark Air Base, for which she is
eminently qualified. Shehad functioned as a Guidance Counselor at the Clark AirBase at the GS 1710-9 level for approximately
four yearsat the time she applied for the same position in 1976.her application was forwarded to Anthony Persi, who hadsome
reservations regarding Shaufs work experience.Persi then requested the Civilian Personnel Office toinitiate immediate inquiry
to the Central OverseaRotation and Recruiting Office (CORRO). Persi was theninformed by CORRO that an Edward B. Isakson
wasselected for the position. Isakson was placed on the rollsat Clark Air Base on January 1977.By reason of her non-selection to
the position,Loida Shauf filed an equal employment opportunitycomplain against respondents for alleged discriminationagainst
the former by reason of her nationality and sex. Trial court held in favor of Shauf, while Court of Appealsreversed decision.
ISSUES
1.WoN the officers of the US Armed Forcesperforming official functions in accordance withthe powers vested in them under
the PhilippineAmerican Military Bases Agreement areimmune from suit (even w/o consent of theState).2.WoN the respondents
are guilty of discrimination against petitioner Shauf.3.WoN Shauf should be awarded compensatorydamages.
HELD
As expressed in Art. XVI, Section 3 of the 1987 Consti,the state may not be sued without its consent. This is agenerally accepted
principle of International law underArt II, Section 2. The case at hand may be construed as asuit against the US, since the
damages to Shauf will betaken from funds of the US. However, it is also applicableto complaints filed against officials of the
state for actsallegedly performed by them in the discharge of theirduties. Unauthorized acts of government officials are notacts
of the State, and an action against the officials byone whose rights have been invaded by such offenses, isnot a suit against the
State covered by the rule of immunity. The respondents are being sued in theirprivate and personal capacity.
The rationale for thisruling is that the doctrine of state immunitycannot be used as an instrument for perpetratingan injustice. A
public official may be liable in hispersonal private capacity for whatever damage hemay have caused by his act done with
malice andin bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authorityor jurisdiction.
Doctrine

Yes. Regalado is concurred with by Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla, and Sarmiento.1.The US officers are NOT IMMUNE from
suit evenwithout the consent of the State.2.Yes the petitioners are guilty of discriminationagainst Shauf. Despite Shaufs
qualifications,Persi did not even consider the formersapplication. Since the petitioner was able toprove the discrimination in
the non-consideration of her application, the burdenshifted to the respondents. The respondentshowever answered with mere
denials of thecharges.
3.
Shauf need not be awarded compensatorydamages. There was no proof that she reallywas to earn $39,662 if she was
employed at thetime.
Damages which are merely possibleare speculative. There must be an actualproof of loss.