Ding Zhen files a lawsuit! The defendant's whereabouts are unknown, the court serves notice by publication

[4] Compiled from: Red Star News
 
[2] On February 2, the People's Court of Litang County, Sichuan, published an announcement on Tianyancha APP, serving Wu Moumou with a copy of the complaint, a notice of evidence submission, a court summons, etc. The announcement states that the case involves a dispute over the right to reputation between the plaintiff Dingzhen Zhenzhu (Dingzhen) and the defendant Wu Moumou. The documents are deemed served 30 days after the announcement's publication, and the trial is scheduled for the second day after the evidence submission period ends.

 
 

Case review
[3] In 2020, Dingzhen, known for his bright, clear eyes, well-defined features, and warm, healing smile, became an internet sensation. He subsequently signed as a state-owned enterprise employee with Litang County Cultural, Tourism, Sports and Investment Development Co., Ltd., serving as a tourism ambassador. Later, some netizens launched personal attacks against Dingzhen, while others maliciously edited his photos on social platforms and posted mocking or even defamatory remarks.

 
 

[4] On February 2, 2023, the People's Court of Litang County announced that in the case (2022) Chuan 3334 Min Chu No. 287, involving the plaintiff Dingzhen Zhenzhu and the defendant Wu Moumou over a reputation rights dispute, due to Wu Moumou's whereabouts being unknown and the inability to serve documents through other means, in accordance with Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the court is serving Wu Moumou by public announcement with legal documents including a copy of the civil complaint, a notice of evidence submission, a notice of response, a notice of rights and obligations and risk warning, a notice of the composition of the collegial panel, and a court summons. The documents are deemed served 30 days after the announcement's publication. The deadline for submitting a statement of defense is 15 days after the service period ends; failure to respond within this period is considered a waiver of the right to defense. The evidence submission period is 30 days after the service period ends. The trial is scheduled for the second day after the evidence submission period ends (postponed if it falls on a legal holiday) at 9:30 a.m. in the Second Civil Trial Court of this court. Failure to appear will result in a default judgment.
 
 
Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China
[5] Article 95
If the person on whom to serve the document is missing, or if service cannot be made by other means provided in this Section, service shall be made by public announcement. Thirty days after the date of the public announcement, the document shall be deemed to have been served.
When service is made by public announcement, the reasons and the process shall be recorded in the case file.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
[6] From the above legal provision and relevant judicial interpretations, we can see that service by public announcement is a special method of service used by the people's court only when the recipient's whereabouts are unknown or other methods of service are unavailable. It informs the recipient of the content of litigation documents through an announcement. Service by public announcement not only has the function of compulsory notification but also the effect of information dissemination. For unaware recipients, it significantly increases the likelihood of receiving litigation information, thereby better protecting their due litigation rights. For recipients who deliberately evade service, it can generate social pressure that conventional service methods cannot, thus compelling them to return to the litigation process.
 
However, service by publication cannot be arbitrarily abused. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations regarding service by publication must be strictly applied, and the management of such service must be strengthened to fully protect the litigation rights of the parties. During case proceedings, judges should correctly choose the method of service based on actual circumstances, which can both reduce the litigation costs of the parties and maximize the protection of the recipient's right to know about the litigation, thereby achieving the purpose of service.