SUSPENDED Cebu Port Authority (CPA) General Manager Francisco Comendador III has asked the Office of the Ombudsman to reverse its decision to preventively suspend him over allegations involving the use of Cebu’s port facilities.
The case stems from a complaint by Oriental Port and Allied Services Corp. (Opascor), which accused Comendador of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty in connection with the operation of the Cebu International Port and other terminals.
Comendador, in his motion for reconsideration, disputed the allegations and argued that the Ombudsman overlooked documents and statements that, he said, contradicted Opascor’s claims, according to the Bilyonaryo News Channel report.
Suspension without pay
The Ombudsman ordered Comendador’s preventive suspension without pay for up to six months in an August 20, 2026, order.
According to the complaint, Comendador failed to enforce CPA Administrative Order 02-2010 and two Cebu Port Commission resolutions concerning the use of port facilities.
The complaint also questioned the movement of vessels and cargo to Cebu South Harbor and Container Terminal Corp. (CSHCTC), which Opascor claimed was allowed despite existing restrictions.
The preventive suspension is not a final finding of administrative liability. It is a temporary measure while the case is being investigated.
Dispute over port operations
Opascor has alleged that the CPA failed to correct what it considered an unlawful arrangement despite its repeated complaints.
Comendador disputes that characterization. In his motion, he said the issues raised by Opascor involved technical and regulatory matters that were already being examined by the CPA and the Department of Transportation. The two agencies eventually formed a joint committee to investigate the contested Cebu port operations, according to his filing.
The official argued that the existence of the review process contradicted the claim that the CPA simply ignored Opascor’s complaints.
The Ombudsman’s findings and Opascor’s allegations, however, represent a different account of how the port rules were applied. The administrative case against Comendador remains unresolved.
Role of shipping companies
A key part of Comendador’s defense is his claim that shipping companies independently decide which terminals their vessels will use.
He cited vessel draft, vessel capacity, port efficiency and costs as factors that may affect those decisions.
According to Comendador’s motion, Maersk Filipinas Inc. said its transfer of operations to CSHCTC was an independent business decision influenced by market conditions, operational efficiency, costs and customer requirements.
CMA CGM Philippines Inc., also cited in the motion, identified technical and operational considerations such as water depth, vessel optimization and cost efficiency.
Comendador argued that the statements support his position that the movement of vessels was driven by business and operational considerations rather than favoritism by the CPA.
Those statements are being presented by Comendador as evidence in his defense. They do not, by themselves, resolve the Ombudsman’s findings on whether CPA rules were violated.
2024 CPA letter
The June 4, 2024, letter issued by the CPA to then Cebu governor Gwendolyn Garcia is another point of dispute.
According to earlier reporting on the Ombudsman case, Opascor questioned the letter after Comendador had initially rejected a request by Maersk Filipinas Inc. for a vessel to use CSHCTC instead of the Cebu International Port. The earlier decision cited the absence of an emergency, necessity or congestion that would allow the private commercial port to accommodate the vessel.
Opascor alleged that Comendador took a different position in the June 4 letter, saying shipping companies and vessels could choose their preferred port and that private commercial ports could accept vessels if they were suitable for them. Opascor later linked the letter to the transfer of portions of the operations of major shipping lines to CSHCTC.
Comendador disputes that interpretation. In his motion for reconsideration, he said the letter followed discussions involving port stakeholders and merely reflected existing operational rules. He also argued that vessel operators have discretion to choose ports, subject to technical and regulatory requirements.
Comendador therefore maintains that the letter did not constitute a policy change designed to favor CSHCTC. Whether it represented a proper application of existing CPA rules or an improper change in policy is among the issues at the center of the administrative case.
Comendador’s challenge to the findings
Comendador argues that the Ombudsman relied too heavily on Opascor’s account while overlooking documents and independent evidence that he said contradicted allegations of bias.
The records, he said, show that vessel movements resulted from shipping companies’ operational and commercial decisions rather than intervention by the CPA.
He also disputed the Ombudsman’s finding of “strong evidence of guilt,” describing it in his motion as conclusory and unsupported by substantial evidence.
Comendador further argued that there was no factual or legal basis to conclude that his continued stay in office could prejudice the investigation.
On that basis, he is asking the Ombudsman to nullify the preventive suspension, which he described as unnecessary and disproportionate. (SunStar Cebu)
