This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-09-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Second. Petitioner may still invoke the arbitration clause of the 2005 Lease Contract notwithstanding the fact that it assails the validity of such contract. This is due to the doctrine of separability.[91] | |||||
|
2008-01-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The arbitration clause was mutually and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. It has not been shown to be contrary to any law, or against morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. There has been no showing that the parties have not dealt with each other on equal footing. We find no reason why the arbitration clause should not be respected and complied with by both parties. In Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd.,[35] we held that submission to arbitration is a contract and that a clause in a contract providing that all matters in dispute between the parties shall be referred to arbitration is a contract.[36] Again in Del Monte Corporation-USA v. Court of Appeals, we likewise ruled that "[t]he provision to submit to arbitration any dispute arising therefrom and the relationship of the parties is part of that contract and is itself a contract."[37] | |||||