-
Suspended Cebu Port Authority general manager Francisco Comendador III asked the Office of the Ombudsman to reverse its 60-day preventive suspension order while denying allegations of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty
-
In a 21-page motion for reconsideration, Comendador said the complaint against him by Oriental Port and Allied Services Corp. has no basis
-
Comendador asserted that existing rules do not give OPASCOR the exclusivity it claims and that private commercial ports are allowed to serve general port users
-
He added that it is the shipping lines’ commercial decision on which terminal it will call at
Suspended Cebu Port Authority (CPA) general manager Francisco Comendador III has asked the Office of the Ombudsman to reverse its 60-day preventive suspension order while denying allegations of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty.
The motion pointed out that 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.”
The Ombudsman in an August 20 order placed Comendador under preventive suspension over the case filed by Oriental Port and Allied Services Corp. (OPASCOR), which provides cargo-handling services at Cebu International Port (CIP).
READ: Ombudsman suspends Cebu Port Authority GM
OPASCOR has accused Comendador of violating CPA Administrative Order (AO) No. 02-2010 for allegedly allowing vessels to dock and conduct cargo operations at Cebu South Harbor and Container Terminal Corp. (CSHCTC), a private commercial port in Talisay City. OPASCOR said this resulted in the transfer of some shipping line services from CIP to the private commercial port, which in turn resulted in the decline in cargo throughput, ship calls, and utilization at CIP.
Under AO No. 02-2010, private commercial ports are allowed to accommodate port users only in cases of emergency, necessity or congestion at government ports and upon written authority of CPA.
OPASCOR also accused Comendador of failing to take adequate action on the private commercial port’s alleged violations involving revenue remittances and cargo-handling fees.
The preventive suspension is a preliminary measure intended to prevent the respondent from influencing witnesses or tampering with records relevant to the complaint, the order added.
‘Preferential treatment’?
In his motion, Comendador said OPASCOR’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.”
“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 said.
Comendador argued that OPASCOR’s case rests on the supposed mistaken assumption that CPA was legally required to prevent vessels from using CSHCTC and effectively direct their operations to CIP.
He said existing rules do not give OPASCOR the exclusivity it claims and that private commercial ports are allowed to serve general port users.
He added that it is the shipping lines’ commercial decision – based on vessel requirements, efficiency and costs – on which terminal it will call at.
Comendador also disputed OPASCOR’s claim that CPA refused to address issues raised by OPASCOR. He said CPA and its mother agency, the Department of Transportation, have already created a joint committee to investigate.
“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.—Roumina Pablo
