The certification materials provided by the unit to the court are not within the eight forms of evidence stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law. In practice, the nature of this kind of evidence has been controversial. Some people think that it is debatable to classify the evidence provided by the unit as witness testimony or documentary evidence.
The certification materials provided by the unit do not belong to witness testimony. The so-called witness testimony means that people who know the facts of a case state the relevant information to the court to prove the existence of some facts of the case. The producer of witness testimony is a natural person. The unit certification material refers to the written material issued by the unit to prove the fact of a case. As a fictional civil subject, a unit does not belong to a natural person, and its external behavior is carried out by its internal institutions or representatives and responsible persons. If it is recognized as witness testimony, it will confuse the meaning of insiders, responsible persons and representatives with the meaning of the unit, and it is impossible to guarantee the authenticity of the proof content. Therefore, the certification materials provided by the unit are by no means the "witness testimony" of the unit.
Another view is that the certification materials provided by the unit belong to the category of documentary evidence, but in essence, the certification materials provided by the unit are obviously different from documentary evidence. Documentary evidence refers to ideological written materials recorded in the form of words, symbols and pictures to prove the facts of a case. There are typically contracts, agreements, IOUs, wills and so on. Documentary evidence is presented in written form, which is formed at or before the crime and is of great value to prove the facts of the case. Although the certification materials provided by the unit are usually presented in written form, they are often formed in the process of prosecution and trial. The objectivity and authenticity of evidence can not be compared with documentary evidence, so it is made in the name of the unit and stamped with the official seal of the unit to enhance its credibility with collective authority. Therefore, the certification materials provided by the unit can hardly be called documentary evidence.
? According to the author's point of view, the evidence submitted by the unit is neither documentary evidence nor witness testimony, which is not among the eight forms of evidence stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law and does not qualify for evidence. However, in view of the existence of a large number in practice, and the judicial interpretation of the civil procedure law has made special provisions on its form and requirements, how to deal with such evidence and how to cross-examine it is a problem worthy of discussion.
According to Article 115 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law: "The certification materials submitted by the unit to the people's court shall be signed or sealed by the person in charge of the unit and the person who made the certification materials, and stamped with the seal of the unit. The people's court may investigate and verify the units that issue the certification materials and the personnel who make the certification materials. When necessary, the person who made the certification materials may be required to testify in court. If the units and personnel who issue the certification materials refuse to be investigated and verified by the people's court, or the personnel who issue the certification materials refuse to testify in court without justifiable reasons, the certification materials shall not be used as the basis for determining the facts of the case. " According to this regulation, the certification materials provided by the unit must meet the statutory requirements in form, and the court has the right to take the initiative to investigate and verify and ask the producers to testify in court. Therefore, we can cross-examine the certification materials provided by the unit from the following aspects.
First, whether it conforms to the statutory form of evidence.
According to Article 115 of the Civil Procedure Law, the certification materials provided by the unit to the people's court must be signed or sealed by the person in charge of the unit and the producer, and stamped with the official seal of the unit, which requires this form of evidence. In practice, the party's unit may issue some certification materials for various reasons, often only the official seal of the unit, without the signature of the legal representative or person in charge, and even without the signature of the producer, which does not conform to the form prescribed by law, so it is not qualified for evidence. This kind of evidence can be presented directly in a form that does not conform to the law, without cross-examination, and the court is required not to review it.
Two, whether it belongs to the scope of authority of the issuing unit.
The certification items of the certification materials issued by the unit must be within the scope of the unit's own authority. In practice, some matters proved by the certification materials stamped with the official seal of the unit obviously do not belong to the scope of authority of the unit, such as the monthly income certificate of residents in this area provided by the neighborhood Committee, and the certification materials issued by a company for its employees on the harmonious relationship between husband and wife. The proof of these evidences is beyond the scope of authority of the unit and does not have authenticity and rationality.
Thirdly, the formation process of proof materials is investigated.
In practice, some units, especially grass-roots organizations, issue certification materials at will, and some materials are simply written by the parties themselves and sealed by the units. First of all, these materials lack standardization in form, such as handwritten proof, obviously irregular writing or typo, which can infer the randomness of the formation process, which greatly reduces the authenticity of the proof materials provided by the unit itself.
Four. Whether the content of the proof is related to the facts to be proved.
Often because of the needs of the case, the parties require the unit to issue proof materials, and the proof issued by the unit is more or less related to the case. However, the proof materials issued by some units are extremely weak in connection with the facts to be proved (perhaps because the units themselves are unwilling to issue them), or have nothing to do with the case itself. At this time, it is necessary to cross-examine the evidence from the relevance and further weaken the probative force of the evidence in combination with other points.
5. Whether the content of the evidence itself is reasonable.
The rationality mentioned here is related to the scope of authority of the second unit to some extent. In practice, there are a large number of cases where some units provide certificates beyond their authority, such as the family income certificate provided by the village Committee and the absenteeism certificate provided by the neighborhood Committee, which are beyond the understanding of the units. At this time, it can be suggested that the contents of the certification materials are unreasonable, because these units can't have a detailed understanding of these cases to prove that such evidence is untrue and irrelevant.
? 6. Ask the producer to appear in court
Article 115 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that the people's court may investigate and verify the certification materials issued by units and producers, and may require producers to appear in court when necessary. If there is any objection to the unit certification materials issued by the other party (provided that the objection must be justified), you can apply to the court for the producer to appear in court to explain the situation. If a unit or producer refuses to explain the situation or refuses to appear in court, it may request the court to directly exclude evidence materials according to law, which will not be used as the basis for ascertaining the facts.
Judging from the original intention of the law, the Supreme Court is seriously skeptical about the authenticity of the certification materials provided by the unit, and regulates such evidence from the form of evidence, verification to legal consequences. In practice, this kind of evidence is indeed varied and ridiculous. We can challenge the qualification and probative force of evidence from the aspects of the form and content of evidence, and apply for the producer to appear in court, and boldly apply for excluding the unreasonable unit certification materials that do not meet the statutory requirements.