## Facts

- A Philippine government instrumentality sued entities tied to Vincente B. Chuidian in California state court; Chuidian counterclaimed and the parties settled in 1985.
- As part of the settlement, Philippine National Bank (PNB), a state-owned bank, issued an irrevocable letter of credit for Chuidian, payable at PNB’s Los Angeles branch, on behalf of the Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation.
- After a change in Philippine government in 1986, the new administration created the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to recover alleged “ill-gotten wealth.”
- Raul Daza, a PCGG member, acting under authority granted by executive order, instructed PNB not to honor the letter of credit while the PCGG examined whether the settlement was fraudulent and tied to alleged Marcos-related misconduct.
- Chuidian sued PNB in California state court to recover on the letter of credit; PNB removed the action to federal court under the FSIA removal statute.
- Chuidian added Daza as a defendant for interference with contractual relations based on Daza’s instruction to PNB.
- The district court dismissed the claims against Daza for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding Daza was immune under the FSIA.

## Issues

1. Whether the FSIA’s immunity provisions apply to an individual foreign official sued for acts taken in an official capacity.
2. Whether any FSIA exception (including waiver, expropriation, or non-commercial tort) removed immunity for the official conduct alleged.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims against Daza for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held that a foreign official sued for official acts may invoke FSIA immunity.
- Because Daza’s instruction to stop payment was taken as part of his PCGG duties, he was treated as covered by the FSIA for immunity purposes.
- The court concluded no applicable FSIA exception displaced immunity on the claims asserted against Daza.

## Legal Principles

- FSIA immunity can extend to individual foreign officials when they are sued for conduct undertaken in an official capacity.
- A plaintiff cannot avoid sovereign immunity by suing an official for actions attributable to the foreign state rather than suing the state directly.
- When FSIA immunity applies, federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over claims against the immune defendant.
- Removal under the FSIA may bring the entire action into federal court, but immunity remains a jurisdictional bar as to any defendant protected by the Act.
- FSIA exceptions such as waiver, expropriation, and non-commercial tort require specific statutory predicates and do not apply merely because U.S. effects are alleged (e.g., payment due at a U.S. branch) if the challenged conduct is governmental and foreign in character.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the FSIA bars suit against a foreign government official for official acts absent a statutory exception, and it affirmed dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where a PCGG commissioner directed a state-owned bank not to honor a letter of credit as part of an official investigation.


Chuidian v. Philippine Nat'l Bank, 912 F.2d 1095 (9th Cir. 1990)