Shauf v. CA
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.
