Cebu City Mayor Nestor Archival has been fined an amount equivalent to one month’s basic salary for failing to ensure that the Colon Street Night Market complied with legal requirements, although the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed allegations of more serious administrative offenses.
The Ombudsman found Archival administratively liable for simple neglect of duty over lapses in the market’s operations, including the absence of required authorization to use a national road and violations of rules governing temporary road closures.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Cebu City Councilor Pastor “Jun” Alcover Jr. in October 2025, questioning the city government’s decision to let the Participative Association of Sugbo Vendors Inc. (PASVI) manage the night market and collect fees from stallholders.
The Ombudsman dismissed charges of grave misconduct, gross negligence and violations of Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, for lack of substantial evidence.
It also dismissed the administrative charges against City Treasurer Emma Villarete and former City Administrator Albert Tan and denied Alcover’s request for their preventive suspension.
The decision identified the lack of authorization from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to use Colon Street, a national road, as one of the deficiencies in the market’s operation.
It also cited noncompliance with Cebu City Ordinance No. 2131, which limits temporary road closures to two days and requires requests to be submitted at least two months in advance.
The Ombudsman further questioned the timing of permits issued by the Business Permit and Licensing Office (BPLO).
Records showed that the first permit was issued on Sept. 1, 2025, two days after the market began operating on Aug. 30.
A second permit was issued on Oct. 20, although operations covered by the permit had started on Oct. 16.
The decision said the lapses should not have escaped Archival’s attention because the BPLO operates under the direct supervision of the mayor’s office.
Although Archival may have relied on subordinates to handle the arrangements, the Ombudsman said he remained responsible for ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
It also stressed that the market’s operation in previous years did not excuse violations of existing rules.
Archival was warned that repeating the same omission would warrant a more severe penalty.
However, the Ombudsman noted that several city offices had authorized or favorably recommended aspects of the night market’s operation.
The Cebu City Council passed Resolution No. 17-0588-2025 authorizing the temporary closure of Calle Colon, from Osmeña Boulevard to Pelaez Street.
The City Legal Office issued an opinion affirming the legality of the market’s operation, while the Cebu City Transportation Office gave favorable recommendations on the road closure.
These actions formed part of the basis for dismissing the more serious allegations against Archival, as the Ombudsman found insufficient evidence to establish grave misconduct or gross negligence.
The anti-graft body also rejected Alcover’s argument that the arrangement with PASVI required public bidding under Republic Act No. 9184, the government procurement law cited in the complaint.
According to the decision, issuing a special permit for the night market did not fall under the law’s coverage of infrastructure projects, goods and consulting services because the arrangement did not involve government spending or the acquisition of goods and services.
The Ombudsman also ruled that the night market was outside the regulatory mandate of the Garbo Asenso Sumbanan Alyansa sa Gugma (GASA) Board, which oversees existing informal traders and vendors along city sidewalks.
Villarete was cleared because the complaint failed to establish her responsibility for the questioned arrangements.
The Ombudsman said allegations that the City Treasurer’s Office lacked records of stall-rental collections were insufficient to establish her liability.
Tan was likewise cleared because the evidence did not adequately link him to the night market’s establishment and operation.
Comments