Cebu port chief denies bias, says complainant misled Ombudsman

Make this your preferred source to get more updates from this publisher on Google.

The suspended chief of the Cebu Port Authority (CPA) has denied allegations that he showed bias in port operations, claiming that the complainant misled the Office of the Ombudsman.

In a 21-page motion for reconsideration, CPA General Manager Francisco Comendador III said there was insufficient evidence to support claims that he favored a private port operator.

“The complaint’s baseless theory that respondent’s actions resulted in preferential treatment in favor of CSHCTC (Cebu South Harbor and Container Terminal Corp.) is wholly unsubstantiated and collapses when measured against the objective record,” Comendador's motion read.

“More tellingly, complainant's baseless theory of ‘undue advantage’ or ‘preferential treatment’ towards CSHCTC collapses in light of independent and contemporaneous declarations from industry participants,” he added.

The Ombudsman placed Comendador under preventive suspension on August 20 over allegations of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty in connection with complaints filed by Oriental Port and Allied Services Corp. (OPASCOR).

OPASCOR alleged that Comendador allowed vessels and cargoes to use CSHCTC, a 25-hectare private international commercial port and domestic shipping hub, in violation of restrictions under CPA Administrative Order No. 02-2010.

Comendador, however, argued that OPASCOR's complaint wrongly assumed that the CPA was legally required to prevent vessels from using CSHCTC and direct them instead to the Cebu International Port.

He added that the rules did not impose the exclusivity claimed by OPASCOR and allowed private commercial ports to serve general port users.

“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,” he added.— MCG, GMA News