District Attorney of New York County v. The Republic of the Philippines
1:14-cv-00890
| S.D.N.Y. | Mar 29, 2018Background
- The New York County District Attorney (DANY) seized cash, paintings (notably Monet and Sisley), jewelry, and other items from Vilma Bautista and related accounts in 2011 and deposited them with the Court as interpleader property.
- Claimants include the Republic of the Philippines (via PCGG), a class of human-rights judgment creditors (Class Plaintiffs), Bautista, and Roxas (Golden Budha Corp. and Roxas’s estate), each asserting competing ownership or recovery rights.
- Central factual disputes: provenance of funds used to acquire the artworks (public Philippine funds vs. private/Marcos family funds), whether Mrs. Marcos or the Republic owned the works, and whether Bautista acquired valid title (including a 1983 Deed of Assignment and later 2010 sale of a Monet).
- Procedural posture: multiple cross-motions for summary judgment, a motion to dismiss by the Republic (arguing sovereign-immunity/other defenses), and a motion by former Republic counsel (S&P) for attorneys’ retaining/charging liens.
- Court’s disposition: denied all summary-judgment and dismissal motions except granted S&P’s request for attorneys’ retaining and charging liens; set a trial schedule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law for ownership and deed validity | Class Plaintiffs: apply New York law | Republic: apply Philippine law (R.A. 1379) | New York choice-of-law rules apply generally; Philippine law governs validity of 1983 Deed of Assignment (contacts favor PH) |
| Standing of Republic and other claimants to assert property claims | Class Plaintiffs: Republic not owner so lacks standing | Republic: has superior interest and may seek relief even without prior physical possession | Court: genuine factual disputes about ownership preclude summary finding that Republic lacks standing |
| Statutes of limitations and equitable tolling for Republic and Roxas claims | Claimants: causes of action are time-barred | Republic and Roxas: equitable tolling applies due to active concealment and diligent pursuit | Court: some claims would be time-barred on their face, but equitable tolling/estoppel and demand-and-refusal rules create fact disputes—claims survive summary judgment |
| Preclusive effect of Hawaii Roxas judgment and tracing requirement for constructive trust | Class Plaintiffs: Roxas judgment unenforceable here; Roxas must precisely trace funds | Roxas: Hawaii judgment establishes Marcos stole treasure and tracing requirement should be relaxed | Court: Hawaii judgment has issue-preclusive effect on theft/conversion findings; tracing requirement relaxed (not eliminated) given exceptional circumstances; Roxas survives summary judgment on constructive-trust claim |
| Validity/effect of 1983 Deed of Assignment to Bautista | Bautista: Deed transferred title, so she owns property | Class Plaintiffs/Republic: deed may be void under Philippine donation formalities or ineffective if property was public | Court: genuine disputes about Deed validity and whether transfer was effective; summary judgment denied for Bautista |
| Republic’s waiver/withdrawal of sovereign immunity and dismissal/stay requests | Republic: PCGG lacked authority and later sovereign acts/comity/act-of-state require dismissal or stay | Claimants: Republic waived immunity, litigated the case; withdrawal too late; estoppel applies | Court: PCGG waived immunity; waiver cannot be withdrawn at this stage (FSIA/judicial estoppel); dismissal/stay denied |
| Admissibility/use of prior deposition testimony | Roxas: prior depositions admissible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(8) and hearsay exceptions | Class Plaintiffs: much prior testimony inadmissible hearsay | Court: prior depositions admissible under Rule 32(a)(8) and create genuine disputes of fact |
| Attorneys’ liens for former counsel S&P | S&P: unpaid fees warrant retaining and charging liens | Republic: did not oppose timely | Court: granted retaining and charging liens under NY common law and Judiciary Law § 475; hearing to fix amount required |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and genuine-issue standard)
- Pertamina v. Bartley, 313 F.3d 70 (2d Cir.) (New York choice-of-law rules in FSIA/interpleader contexts)
- Pimentel v. Republic of Philippines, 553 U.S. 851 (sovereign-immunity and interpleader context)
- Lapides v. Board of Regents, 535 U.S. 613 (waiver/implied waiver of sovereign immunity by voluntary appearance)
- Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (act-of-state doctrine)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (judicial estoppel doctrine)
- Roxas v. Marcos, 969 P.2d 1209 (Haw. 1998) (Hawaii judgment on Roxas’s claims; scope of findings)