Copy of the complaint (photocopy) with indecent words written on it (circled area)
By Hu Zhiwei, Guangxi News Network, with text and photos
In a labor contract dispute case, the plaintiff, dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, went to the court to review case materials and found that someone had written indecent words such as "dog ×'s, no obligation, matter or reason for compensation" on the complaint. On August 24, relevant officials from the Qinzhou Intermediate People's Court said that after investigation, this was done by a deputy director of the Qinnorth District Court. At the time, these words were written casually without any specific target, and there was no misconduct or illegal behavior such as favoritism or unjust adjudication. Currently, the Qinnorth District Court has criticized and educated the involved judge and apologized to the plaintiff.
Shocked While Reviewing Case Files
Last year, Ms. Lu from Qinzhou City got into a labor contract dispute with a company in Nanning and took them to court. The case was heard by the Qinnorth District People's Court of Qinzhou City.
Mr. Li, Ms. Lu's husband and her authorized representative, said that in early December last year, the court issued the first-instance judgment. The court ruled that the defendant should compensate more than 1400 yuan, which was far from what his wife initially demanded. Unsatisfied, she decided to appeal.
On December 8th last year, when Mr. Li reviewed the case materials at the court, he saw two lines of text written on the blank space of the complaint’s last page. The top line read "dog ×'s," while the bottom line read "no obligation, matter or reason for compensation."
Mr. Li said that these two lines were written next to his wife's signature, clearly constituting "public insult and defamation in written form," causing him and his wife great harm spiritually, psychologically, and in terms of personal dignity. Furthermore, considering the result of the first-instance judgment, both believed that someone had misled or influenced the trial, putting them at a clear disadvantage throughout the litigation process.
Two Versions of the Writer's Identity
Mr. Li said that two days after the incident, he reported the situation to Director Su of the Civil Trial First Division. Director Su claimed that he had nothing to do with it, stating that "someone else in our division wrote it," and immediately wrote down the same content for Mr. Li to use for identification.
A day later, on December 11th last year, Director Su came to Mr. Li's home. "He said the words were written by others, but since he was the head, he couldn't avoid responsibility. He asked us not to make a big deal out of it and even wanted to take back the text he had written," Mr. Li recalled. A few days later, Director Su approached him again, saying that the words were written by a deputy director surnamed Jie from their division.
After discovering the indecent words, Mr. Li made a photocopy of the complaint and sent both materials to a judicial appraisal center in Nanning for identification. Surprisingly, according to the appraiser's report, using single-character special marking methods to compare the two sets of handwriting, they found that both shared characteristics in stroke combination, stroke order, etc., reflecting the writing habits and patterns of the same person. The conclusion of the appraisal report was that both sets of handwriting were written by the same person, implying that the indecent words were written by Director Su.
Similarly, after the incident, Mr. Li also reported the matter to the disciplinary inspection department of the court. On December 18th last year, they replied that the words were written by Deputy Director Jie during the hearing of the case.
According to records, Deputy Director Jie was one of the three members of the panel responsible for the first-instance trial of Ms. Lu's labor contract dispute case.
Who is the Culprit?
Mr. Li stated that as the event unfolded, multiple departments in Qinzhou City intervened to mediate the issue. Once, a responsible official from the Qinnorth District Court "apologized to us, said sorry, and mentioned that they had already required Jie to write a self-criticism." However, what made him and his wife unsatisfied was that the official still claimed the words were written by Deputy Director Jie.
To this day, Mr. Li and his wife still believe that the indecent words on the complaint were written by Director Su. In their view, Director Su was not a member of the original case's panel, "yet he could clearly write down his opinion and demands for the verdict on the complaint," which constitutes "indirect interference in cases handled by others." What upset them even more was that "in the face of clear evidence and facts," Director Su never admitted that the words were his. Mr. Li believed that Jie was merely a scapegoat for Director Su and might even be suspected of perjury.
Another "evidence" cited by Mr. Li and his wife suggesting someone interfered with the first-instance verdict was that, in the subsequent second-instance trial conducted by the Qinzhou Intermediate People's Court, the verdict was "completely different": Ms. Lu received over 10,000 yuan in compensation.
In July this year, Mr. Li and his wife submitted a complaint to the Qinnorth District Court, citing infringement of reputation rights and personality rights, demanding that Directors Su and Jie publicly apologize in newspapers, compensate for economic losses of 1043 yuan, and pay 50,000 yuan for mental distress. On August 3rd, the court's ruling stated that the lawsuit would not be accepted.
Attention from Municipal Leadership
It is understood that the incident of indecent words on the copy of the complaint drew attention from leaders of the Qinzhou Municipal Committee, who required relevant departments to investigate and handle the matter.
On August 24th, relevant officials from the Qinzhou Intermediate People's Court stated that the leadership of the court also paid close attention to this matter and required the Qinnorth District Court to conduct a serious investigation. After investigation, it was confirmed that during the public hearing of Ms. Lu's labor contract dispute case at the Qinnorth District Court, Jie was one of the three members of the panel, while Su was not a member. As a trial judge, Jie held the plaintiff's copy of the complaint, along with the defendant's defense statement and evidence materials.
Typically, the court only archives and binds the original materials provided by the plaintiff and defendant that bear the seal of the relevant business court of the court for receipt verification, while the copies are materials awaiting destruction after organization. The copy of the complaint in this case was temporarily placed in the office of the case handler after the trial and did not spread or promote externally.
Upon investigation, it was confirmed that the indecent words on the copy of the complaint were indeed written by Jie. Jie admitted that these words were "written casually, without any meaning, direction, or insult to anyone, and he forgot about it afterward." A staff member of the Qinzhou Intermediate People's Court who had worked with Su for many years stated that he was familiar with Su's handwriting and carefully compared the indecent words on the copy, concluding that they were not written by Su.
Regarding the handwriting appraisal report provided by Mr. Li, relevant officials stated that after the dispute between Mr. Li and his wife and the Qinnorth District Court, the handwriting appraisal work should have been conducted by an independent third-party institution rather than Mr. Li himself, one of the parties involved, to ensure credibility.
Relevant officials also emphasized that in Ms. Lu's labor contract dispute case, Jie did not engage in any misconduct or illegal behavior such as favoritism or unjust adjudication. Additionally, although Su was the head of a division, he did not interfere with the normal proceedings of the case and did not engage in any misconduct or illegal behavior such as unjust adjudication.
Explanation by Officials of the Intermediate Court
If no one interfered with the first-instance verdict, why was the outcome of the second-instance verdict by the intermediate court different? On August 24th, relevant officials from the Qinzhou Intermediate People's Court specifically explained the matter to reporters.
The official stated that in Ms. Lu's labor contract dispute case, one of the main issues was whether her overtime pay should be compensated. The facts uncovered during the second instance were basically consistent with the first instance, so the intermediate court legally upheld the reasonable parts of the first-instance verdict. However, during the second instance, based on evidence, it was confirmed that the appellant Ms. Lu had worked overtime, and she claimed overtime pay and provided evidence for it. The defendant raised objections but failed to provide "sufficient evidence to counter Ms. Lu's claim that her overtime pay was not fully distributed." Therefore, the defendant must bear the consequences of failing to provide sufficient evidence. The second-instance verdict also considered safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of workers.
The official further noted that after the second-instance verdict became effective, Mr. Li's side made new unreasonable demands on the Qinnorth District Court and the defendant company, and their purposes and actions were inconsistent, putting considerable pressure on the court.
Regarding the "infringement of reputation rights" lawsuit filed by Mr. Li and his wife, the Qinnorth District Court believed that civil complaints are only used in specific times and places during court trials. The complaint was kept by the case handler for destruction and was not disclosed to the public. Mr. Li's side claimed that missing the best treatment time due to a serious illness, leading to marital breakdown and causing immeasurable and indescribable harm to family life, lacked evidence proving a causal relationship with the indecent words, hence the decision not to accept the case.
Currently, Mr. Li and his wife have submitted an appeal to the Qinzhou Intermediate People's Court, requesting the revocation of the Qinnorth District Court's ruling.
Preventing Similar Incidents in the Future
It was introduced that after the incident of indecent words occurred, the Qinnorth District Court actively communicated with the other party. Director Su wrote the same content to eliminate misunderstandings. Later, Director Su visited Mr. Li's home because he learned that the other party was "appealing everywhere," causing an impact, and there was no situation of "not reporting the matter to other departments."
After the incident, the Qinnorth District Court's disciplinary inspection department fed back the investigation results to Mr. Li and his wife and patiently and meticulously explained and clarified the situation multiple times.
To properly handle the matter, leaders of the Qinnorth District Court and the disciplinary inspection department repeatedly received Mr. Li and others. On December 22nd last year, the court president, vice president, and heads of the disciplinary inspection department received Mr. Li and his mother, informing them once again of the court's investigation results, apologizing on behalf of the court for the improper behavior of the judge, and informing them that the involved judge had been criticized and educated, and that the court would strengthen team building in the future, etc. "At the time, the other party expressed that they would stop纠缠 and thanked the court for its sincere reception."
The Qinnorth District Court believes that although the indecent words were written on materials intended for destruction and did not spread or cause negative social impacts, the behavior violated the provisions of the "Provisional Code of Conduct for Judges." The court criticized and educated the involved judge, ordering them to deeply recognize the nature of the error and learn from the experience. The court will take this as a lesson, strengthen the regular education of judges' professional ethics, maintain the fair image of judges, and prevent similar behaviors from happening again.