SHAUF VS.

CA 191 SCRA 713

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 non-
selection, 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,

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

HELD:
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.