Suspended CPA chief seeks reconsideration

CEBU, Philippines — Suspended Cebu Port Authority (CPA) General Manager Francisco C. Comendador III has asked the Office of the Ombudsman to reverse its Aug. 20, 2026, order and reconsider the findings that led to his preventive suspension, insisting that allegations he favored a rival private port operator were baseless.

In his 21-page motion for reconsideration, Comendador denied allegations of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty, maintaining that he acted within the bounds of existing laws, regulations and CPA policies.

He also accused Oriental Port and Allied Services Corp. (OPASCOR) of misleading the Ombudsman by presenting a “baseless” theory of preferential treatment in favor of Cebu South Harbor and Container Terminal Corp. (CSHCTC).

Comendador said a close examination of the records would show insufficient evidence to justify his preventive suspension.

“The Complaint’s baseless theory that Respondent’s actions resulted in preferential treatment in favor of CSHCTC, is wholly unsubstantiated and collapses when measured against the objective record,” Comendador said.

He also argued that OPASCOR’s allegation of “undue advantage” or “preferential treatment” was contradicted by statements from shipping industry participants.

Comendador cited letters from Maersk Filipinas Inc. and CMA CGM Philippines Inc. explaining their decisions involving CSHCTC.

According to Comendador, Maersk said in its Jan. 12, 2026, letter that its transfer of operations to CSHCTC was a “purely independent business decision” driven by prevailing market trends, operational efficiencies, overall cost considerations and customer requirements.

CMA CGM, in a Feb. 3, 2026, letter, similarly cited technical and operational considerations, including water depth, vessel optimization and cost efficiencies.

“Significantly, Maersk identified objective technical factors, particularly, deeper draft capacity, as the basis for maximizing vessel load efficiency, resulting in measurable operational gains in its import moves (units) handled in CSHCTC,” Comendador said.

“These declarations are not self-serving statements of Respondent, but independent declarations from third-party industry actors,” he added.

Comendador said the statements constituted evidence that port selection decisions were driven by commercial and technical considerations, rather than by any act, directive or influence attributable to him.

OPASCOR had accused Comendador of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty for allegedly allowing vessels and cargoes to use CSHCTC despite restrictions under CPA Administrative Order No. 02-2010 and despite the company’s demands for regulatory intervention.

The Ombudsman, in its Aug. 20 order, found the evidence against Comendador sufficient at that stage to warrant his preventive suspension. It stressed, however, that the order was not a final determination of his administrative liability.

Comendador disputed OPASCOR’s interpretation of the applicable port regulations, arguing that the CPA was not legally required to prevent vessels from using CSHCTC and effectively channel them to the Cebu International Port.

He maintained that the governing rules did not grant OPASCOR the exclusivity it claimed and recognized private commercial ports as facilities that may serve general port users.

The suspended port chief also rejected the allegation that the CPA ignored OPASCOR’s complaints or allowed an unlawful arrangement to continue.

He said the issues raised by OPASCOR involved technical and regulatory questions that were already being examined by the CPA and the Department of Transportation, which eventually formed a joint committee to investigate the contested Cebu port operations.

Comendador further argued that the Ombudsman’s order did not sufficiently consider evidence showing that shipping companies’ decisions to use CSHCTC were based on their own operational requirements.

He cited vessel draft, terminal capacity, port efficiency and costs as among the factors influencing shipping lines’ choice of terminal.

He also defended the CPA’s June 4, 2024, letter, which OPASCOR had questioned, saying it did not constitute an improper policy change intended to benefit CSHCTC.