Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

SHAUF vs. CA Case Digest

1) Petitioner Loida Shauf, a Filipino woman married to an American airman, applied twice for a guidance counselor position at Clark Air Base but was denied. 2) She filed a complaint alleging discrimination based on nationality and sex against the civilian personnel officer and education director. 3) She was eventually given a temporary position but was never appointed to the permanent role she sought. She claimed this was due to conflicts with other employees. 4) Lower courts initially ruled in Shauf's favor but appeals courts sided with the defendants, claiming they had immunity as officers of the U.S. Armed Forces. However, the Supreme Court found they were being sued in their private capacities for discrimin

Uploaded by

Thea Barte
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

SHAUF vs. CA Case Digest

1) Petitioner Loida Shauf, a Filipino woman married to an American airman, applied twice for a guidance counselor position at Clark Air Base but was denied. 2) She filed a complaint alleging discrimination based on nationality and sex against the civilian personnel officer and education director. 3) She was eventually given a temporary position but was never appointed to the permanent role she sought. She claimed this was due to conflicts with other employees. 4) Lower courts initially ruled in Shauf's favor but appeals courts sided with the defendants, claiming they had immunity as officers of the U.S. Armed Forces. However, the Supreme Court found they were being sued in their private capacities for discrimin

Uploaded by

Thea Barte
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

SHAUF vs.

CA
G.R. No. 90314
November 27, 1990
Penned by: REGALADO, J.

FACTS:
Petitioner Loida Q. Shauf, a Filipino by origin and married to an American working at the US
Airforce applied for a vacant position of Guidance Counselor twice in the Base Education Office
at the 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.
Petitioner was then offered a temporary position as a temporary Assistant Education Adviser for
180-days with the condition that if a vacancy occurs, she will be automatically selected to fill the
vacancy. But if no vacancy occurs after the period, she will be released but will be selected to fill
a future vacancy in case of her availability.
Shauf accepted the offer but she was never appointed to her prayed position. She claims that the
denial of her the appointment is a consequence of a conflict between her and other employees.
Shauf filed for damages and other relief in different courts.
Consequently, the RTC ruled in favor of Shauf.
On appeal, 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
actions made by them in performance of their official governmental functions pursuant to RP-US
Military Bases Agreement of 1947.
The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the defendants stating that they are immune from suit.
Shauf appealed claiming that the respondents are being sued in their private capacity hence, not a
suit against the United States government which would require consent.
ISSUE:
WON private respondents are immune from suit in view of their being officers of the Armed
Forces of United States.
HELD:
No. The private respondents were sued in their private personal capacity and the acts of the
defendant in rejecting the appointment were discriminatory which does not enable her to use the
defense of immunity from suit.

You might also like