CEBU CITY, Philippines — Suspended Cebu Port Authority (CPA) General Manager Francisco Comendador III has filed a motion asking the Office of the Ombudsman to overturn its preventive suspension order, denying allegations that he favored a specific port operator.
In the motion received by the anti-graft body on September 17, Comendador maintained that his actions aligned with relevant laws and agency protocols, rejecting the claims made by Oriental Port and Allied Services Corporation (OPASCOR).
Comendador asserted that OPASCOR failed to provide adequate evidence proving he granted unfair advantages to Cebu South Harbor and Container Terminal Corporation (CSHCTC). He added that the complaint lacks the legal and factual basis required to justify his temporary removal from office.
“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 in the motion.
“More tellingly, Complainant’s baseless theory of ‘undue advantage’ or ‘preferential treatment’ towards to CSHCTC collapses in light of independent and contemporaneous declarations from industry participants,” he added.
OPASCOR previously accused Comendador of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty, alleging he permitted vessels and cargo to dock at CSHCTC in violation of CPA Administrative Order No. 02-2010 and ignored requests for regulatory intervention.
While the Ombudsman ruled in an August 20 order that the initial evidence supported a preventive suspension, it clarified that the decision did not reflect a final verdict on his administrative liability.
Challenging the ruling, Comendador argued that OPASCOR’s grievance relies on the false premise that the CPA was obligated to block vessels from CSHCTC and redirect them to the Cebu International Port (CIP).
He noted that existing regulations do not grant OPASCOR exclusive rights and expressly recognize private commercial ports as valid facilities for port users.
To support his defense, Comendador cited communications from major shipping lines indicating that their port choices were guided by technical and commercial factors rather than agency directives.
A January 12, 2026 letter from Maersk Filipinas Inc. described its operational shift to CSHCTC as a “purely independent business decision, driven by prevailing market trends, operational efficiencies, overall cost considerations, and customer requirements.” Meanwhile, a February 3, 2026 letter from CMA CGM Philippines Inc. pointed to “technical and operational considerations, including water depth, vessel optimization, and cost efficiencies” as reasons for choosing CSHCTC.
“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 noted.
“These declarations are not self-serving statements of Respondent but independent declarations from third-party industry actors. They constitute direct and positive evidence that port selection decisions were driven by commercial and technical considerations, not by any act, directive, or influence attributable to Respondent,” he added.
Comendador also dismissed claims that the CPA ignored complaints regarding an unlawful arrangement, explaining that the complex regulatory issues involved are currently under review by a joint committee created by the CPA and the Department of Transportation (DOTr).
He further defended a June 4, 2024 CPA letter—which OPASCOR cited as a policy shift favoring CSHCTC—explaining that it was issued following stakeholder consultations and merely reiterated established operational rules permitting vessel operators to choose their preferred terminal provided they meet safety and technical standards.
Comendador concluded that the Ombudsman relied disproportionately on OPASCOR’s claims while disregarding contradictory documentary evidence.
“In sum, the Complaint is premature and contravenes settled administrative doctrines; the finding of ‘strong evidence of guilt’ is conclusory, unsupported, and bereft of substantial evidentiary basis; the charges are directly refuted by documentary and independent objective evidence on record,” Comendador said.
“there exists no factual or legal basis to support any finding that Respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the investigation; and the preventive suspension imposed is unnecessary, unjustified, and grossly disproportionate to the circumstances of the case.”
“Accordingly, the issuance of the assailed Order, despite the existence of less restrictive measures, violates the requirement of proportionality and constitutes a capricious and arbitrary exercise of discretion. Such arbitrariness rises to the level of grave abuse of discretion, warranting the nullification of the preventive suspension order,” he stated.