1) Under the doctrine of separability, an arbitration agreement is considered as independent of the main contract. Since the two are separate, the arbitration agreement does not automatically terminate when the main contract comes to an end. Moreover, the doctrine of separability holds that the invalidity of the main contract, also known as the “container contract,” does not affect the validity of the arbitration agreement. Hence, regardless of the invalidity of the main contract, the arbitration agreement therein remains valid and enforceable.

2) SUBPOENA:

A SUBPOENA IS A PROCESS DIRECTED TO A PERSON REQUIRING HIM TO ATTEND AND TO TESTIFY AT THE HEARING OR TRIAL OF AN ACTION OR AT ANY INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE PHILIPPINES, OR FOR THE TAKING OF HIS DEPOSITION. In this jurisdiction, there are two (2) kinds of subpoena, to wit: subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum . The first is used to compel a person to testify, while the second is used to compel the production of books, records, things or documents therein specified. As characterized in H.C. Liebenow vs. The Philippine Vegetable Oil Company: The subpoena duces tecum is, in all respects, like the ordinary subpoena ad testificandum with the exception that it concludes with an injunction that the witness shall bring with him and produce at the examination the books, documents, or things described in the subpoena.

         Well-settled is the rule that before a subpoena duces tecum may issue, the court must first be satisfied that the following requisites are present: (1) the books, documents or other things requested must appear prima facie relevant to the issue subject of the controversy (test of relevancy); and (2) such books must be reasonably described by the parties to be readily identified (test of definiteness).

3) DOCTRINE OF IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENT:

  ONCE A JUDGMENT ATTAINS FINALITY, IT BECOMES IMMUTABLE AND UNALTERABLE. IT MAY NO LONGER BE MODIFIED IN ANY RESPECT, EVEN IF THE MODIFICATION IS MEANT TO CORRECT WHAT IS PERCEIVED TO BE AN ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION OF FACT OR LAW, AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE MODIFICATION IS ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE COURT RENDERING IT OR BY THIS COURT.

4) PREJUDICIAL QUESTION:

    In Torres v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 153666, December 27, 2002, 394 SCRA 494, 508-509, the Supreme Court stated that under the amendment, a prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must precede the criminal action and which requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with which said question is closely connected. The civil action must be instituted prior to the institution of the criminal action.

       Clearly, the civil action must precede the filing of the criminal action for a Prejudicial Question to exist. :yellow;mso-highlight: yellow;mso-ansi-language:EN-PH;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: AR-SA'>Clearly, the civil action must precede the filing of the criminal action for a Prejudicial Question to exist.

5) PROHIBITION:

     The standard under Rule 65 for the issuance of the writ of prohibition is "grave abuse of discretion" and not mere "abuse of discretion." The difference is not a simple matter of semantics. The writs governed by Rule 65 – certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition – are extraordinary remedies designed to correct not mere errors of judgment (i.e., in the appreciation of facts or interpretation of law) but errors of jurisdiction (i.e., lack or excess of jurisdiction). Unlike the first category of errors which the lower tribunal commits in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the latter class of errors is committed by a lower tribunal devoid of jurisdiction or, alternatively, for exercising jurisdiction in an "arbitrary or despotic manner." By conflating "abuse of discretion" with "grave abuse of discretion," the Court of Appeals failed to follow the rigorous standard of Rule 65, diluting its office of correcting only jurisdictional errors.6)  THE TERMS "ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE" AND "ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT," AS DEFINED UNDER THE ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ACT OF 2000, DO NOT INCLUDE A FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION.  Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence. When congress drafted the law, it excluded the earlier forms of technology like telegraph, telex, and telecopy (except computer-generated faxes) when the law defined electronic data message.

7) ARREST:

         IN THE ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST, THE MANDATE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS FOR THE JUDGE TO PERSONALLY DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE.

          The words "personal determination," was interpreted by the Supreme Court in Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585, 14 November 1988, 167 SCRA 393, 406)                    - the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself as to the existence of probable cause.

          (a) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or

          (b) if on the basis thereof, he finds no probable cause, disregard the prosecutor's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in determining its existence.

8) PARAFFIN TEST:

     A NEGATIVE FINDING ON PARAFFIN TEST IS NOT A CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT ONE HAS NOT FIRED A GUN BECAUSE IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO FIRE A GUN AND YET BEAR NO TRACES OF NITRATES OR GUNPOWDER, AS WHEN THE CULPRIT WASHES HIS HANDS OR WEARS GLOVES.

9) GENERAL PRINCIPLES:

     AS A GENERAL RULE, LAWS SHALL HAVE NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT. HOWEVER, EXCEPTIONS EXIST, AND ONE SUCH EXCEPTION CONCERNS A LAW THAT IS PROCEDURAL IN NATURE. The reason is that a remedial statute or a statute relating to remedies or modes of procedure does not create new rights or take away vested rights but only operates in furtherance of the remedy or the confirmation of already existing rights. A statute or rule regulating the procedure of the

courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of its passage. All procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent. The retroactive application is not violative of any right of a person who may feel adversely affected, for, verily, no vested right generally attaches to or arises from procedural laws.