Court Rules Marketing Manager Cannot Claim 130,000 RMB Service Fee From Affiliated Company

Court Rules Marketing Manager Cannot Claim 130,000 RMB Service Fee From Affiliated Company

Case Overview
A marketing manager filed a lawsuit against an affiliated company seeking 130,000 RMB in service fees for managing the companys marketing operations. The Eastern China court rejected the claim after forensic examination revealed the key document supporting the fee request was created years after its stated date. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a contractual relationship for service fees and that the evidence submitted was unreliable.

Case Background and Facts
The plaintiff, Mr. Xie, worked as a marketing manager for Ningbo Global Concrete Co., Ltd. Since July 2004, his marketing department managed the business marketing operations for the defendant, a building materials company. In February 2009, Mr. Xie submitted a document titled “Request for Clarification of Marketing Department Business Management Fee” which he claimed showed the defendants approval of a fee structure. According to Mr. Xie, the defendants general manager approved 225,000 RMB in management fees for the period from July 2004 to February 2009, with 130,000 RMB designated for Mr. Xie personally. The fee was never paid due to an equity transfer among the parent companies in March 2009. Mr. Xie repeatedly demanded payment but received no satisfaction, leading him to file a lawsuit for 130,000 RMB in service fees.

Court Proceedings and Evidence
The court held two public hearings in March and December 2010. Mr. Xie presented eight pieces of evidence including the disputed fee request document, internal reports showing general manager approval, correspondence demanding payment, joint annual inspection reports showing concrete sales volume, and employment records showing his formal employment with Ningbo Global Concrete Co., Ltd. The defendant argued the fee request was fraudulent, noting that the companys general manager lacked authority to approve such fees and that no company policy supported marketing department commissions. The defendant submitted forensic evidence from a handwriting expert and requested judicial authentication of the disputed document. The court commissioned the East China University of Political Science and Law Forensic Science Center to analyze the document.

Court Findings and Judgment
The forensic examination revealed that Mr. Xies signature on the “Request for Clarification” document dated July 2004 was actually written around 2009. The court accepted this expert opinion as valid evidence. The court found that Mr. Xie had an employment relationship with Ningbo Global Concrete Co., Ltd., not with the defendant company. His salary, social insurance, and labor contracts were all with Ningbo Global Concrete. Although the defendant argued that the affiliated companies operated as a single entity before the equity transfer, the court noted the defendant failed to provide evidence of an employment relationship with Mr. Xie. The court ruled that Mr. Xie failed to meet his burden of proof regarding the claimed service fees. The court dismissed all claims and ordered Mr. Xie to pay court costs of 1,450 RMB and forensic examination fees of 30,000 RMB.

Key Legal Principles
The court applied the fundamental principle that each party bears the burden of proving the facts supporting its claims. A party who fails to provide sufficient evidence must bear the legal consequences of that failure. The court also emphasized that forensic evidence can be used to challenge the authenticity of documents, and expert opinions from authorized institutions carry significant evidentiary weight.

Practical Insights
This case demonstrates the critical importance of document authenticity in commercial disputes. Parties relying on internal approvals or fee agreements should ensure documents are properly dated and executed at the time of the transaction. The case also illustrates that employment relationships are determined by formal contracts and payroll records, not by the scope of work performed for affiliated entities. Companies operating multiple entities should maintain clear documentation of employee assignments across affiliates to avoid confusion about which entity bears responsibility for compensation.

Legal References
Civil Procedure Law of the Peoples Republic of China (2007 Revision), Article 64, Paragraph 1: A party has the responsibility to provide evidence in support of its own claims.

Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal matters.