Opinion ID: 732381
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Facts Established

Text: 15 Appellants argue that Hilao has shown no evidence that Ferdinand E. Marcos had an estate; no evidence of any assets belonging to any such estate; no evidence that Appellants have any control over any such assets; and no evidence of an agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and Imelda Marcos and Ferdinand R. Marcos on behalf of either such an estate or themselves. Appellants deny that any such facts have been established and argue that without evidence of such facts, there can be no finding of contempt. 16 All of those facts, however, are established either through the findings of the district court contained in the final judgment granting the permanent injunction or through the Rule 37 sanction imposed by the district court in the contempt proceedings. In its final judgment, the district court made the following finding of fact: 17 There is a probability that the Estate has assets other than the foreign bank accounts identified by the Estate's legal representatives. 18 Although the Estate has appealed from this final judgment, in that appeal it has not challenged the findings of fact made by the district court in granting the permanent injunction. 19 By operation of the discovery sanctions in the contempt proceedings, the following additional facts were established: 20 Even after entry of the Injunction Imelda Marcos and Ferdinand R. Marcos, on behalf of themselves and the Estate, continued a course of conduct aimed at preventing Plaintiffs and the Class from recovering on an ultimate judgment. 21 ... 22 Imelda Marcos and Ferdinand R. Marcos, on behalf of the defendant Estate and themselves as heirs, and the Republic of the Philippines entered into two agreements on June 26, 1992 which [ ]: 23 a. agree[d] to transfer art works beneficially owned by the defendant Estate from the United States to the Philippines; and 24 b. agree[d] to divide all assets owned by the defendant Estate between the Republic and the heirs of the Estate. 25 ... 26 The division of assets will effectively divest the Estate of any assets upon which Plaintiffs and the Class can execute, while giving hundreds of million of dollars of assets to Imelda Marcos and Ferdinand R. Marcos tax free..... 27 In late January 1995 Ferdinand R. Marcos publicly admitted that he had travelled to Switzerland in July 1994 as part of a deal with the Republic to transfer and split the Estate assets. 28 .... 29 On April 5, 1995 Philippine counsel for the contemnors filed with a court in the Philippines a Petition seeking dismissal of all legal proceedings against them, their family members and the Estate as a result of two agreements entered into on December 28, 1993 between the contemnors and the Republic.... 30 The December 28, 1993 agreements provide, inter alia: 31 a. the Republic and the Estate will divide all assets of the estate 75/25 with the Marcos heirs receiving their 25% tax free. 32 b. all legal proceedings against the Estate and Marcos heirs would be dismissed. 33 c. the Marcos heirs agree to cooperate with the Republic to effect the transfer of all monies held in accounts in Switzerland. 34 The establishment of these facts through the imposition of the discovery sanction was proper, and they support the district court's grant of the motion for contempt.