Governor Patrick Alain T. Azanza has 15 days starting from today, Jan. 27, 2026 to cure two (2) procedural defects in the declaratory petition he filed before the Regional Trial Court over the Quick Relief Fund (QRF) controversy.
The final and non-extendible period was granted by RTC Branch 43 Acting Presiding Judge Ritche R. Regala, who warned that “failure of the petitioner to comply fully with both requirements within the period shall result in the dismissal of the entire petition, without further notice, for failure to prosecute and for non-compliance with the rules on parties and procedure.”
It may be recalled that early this year, the governor, as resident of the province and as governor representing the provincial government, filed an application for issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction on the QRF issue.
Azanza has refused to implement an ordinance passed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan mandating the grant of cash assistance to victims of super typhoon “Uwan”, with the chief executive insisting that the measure runs counter to the pertinent provisions of Republic Act 10121 on the utilization of the QRF.
The Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (PDRRMC) had recommended the use of the QRF for the distribution of GI sheets and other construction materials.
Prior to issuing the order, Judge Regala had noted during the second preliminary hearing on Jan. 23, petitioner Azanza appeared still without the proper counsel and had yet to formally notify the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) regarding his petition as required under Section 3 Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.
The respondents, Vice Governor Robert A. Fernandez and 11 provincial board members, also showed up without counsel.
In the Order, the judge found that the petition for declaratory relief suffers from two (2) procedural defects that much be cured begore any adjudication on the merits may proceed.
He stressed that the Rules of Court explicitly mandate that in any action involving the validity of a statute, executive order, regulation, or any governmental regulation, the OSG must be notified.
The Order stated that the failure of the petitioner to submit any proof of such notice is a mandatory ground for withholding judicial consideration of the petition itself.
The mention that a request for representation has been forwarded to the OSG “is not equivalent to the notice required,” Judge Regala said, adding that said notice is a separate, mandatory procedure owed to the OSG to allow it to intervene and be heard on the question of the validity of a governmental regulation.
On the other hand, the Court pointed out a fatal defect in the petition: its failure to implead three indispensable parties – the Provincial Treasurer, the Provincial Budget Officer, and the Provincial Accountant – who will actually implement the ordinance granting cash assistance from the QRF.
“A restraining order or injunction against the implementation of an existing ordinance that has yet to be nullified, would be ineffective and unenforceable against these implementing officers if they are not parties to the case,” it underscored, stating further that any judgment rendered in their absence would not bind them, rendering the reliefs prayed for inutile.
As to the requested TRO and Preliminary Injunction, the Court denied the same for the failure of the petitioner to establish “a clear and unmistakable right that is threatened” and for lack of jurisdiction over the three key provincial officials.
While it noted that the petitioner raised serious legal questions, Judge Regala said the existence of the petitioner’s right to the injunctive relief is clouded and rendered unenforceable by the procedural defects.
It was likewise noted that since the three implementing officers are not parties to the case, the Court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin them.
“The petitioner’s failure to join the indispensable parties is fatal to the application for injunctive relief,” it concluded.
The copy of the Order, given by Judge Regala in open court during the Jan. 23 hearing, was issued this Jan. 27, 2026.