The Office of the Ombudsman has ordered Cebu City Mayor Nestor Dionson Archival Sr. to pay a fine equivalent to one month’s basic salary after finding him administratively liable for simple neglect of duty over lapses in the operation of the 2025 Colon Street Night Market.
The Ombudsman on Wednesday said Archival failed to exercise due diligence in ensuring compliance with operational requirements, particularly coordination with the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the issuance of permits.
The ruling said records failed to establish that the city government had secured the necessary approval or coordinated with the DPWH before allowing the night market to operate along Colon Street, a national road under the agency’s jurisdiction.
‘His failure to address the noted operational requirements is a reflection of carelessness and lack of due diligence in relation to the performance of his official duties,’ the decision read.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Pastor Jun Alcover Jr., who questioned the management of the night market, which operated under a special permit issued by the city government to a private organizer.
The complaint alleged that the organizer was authorized to screen vendors, set stall rental rates, collect fees, and retain the proceeds from the market.
Alcover also questioned the lack of consultation with the Garbo Asenso Sumbanan Alyansa sa Gugma (GASA) Board, a special body established under a city ordinance to oversee and regulate informal trading activities.
The complaint further alleged that more than 600 sellers were allowed to participate, despite the special permit covering only about 100 vendors. Operations also allegedly continued beyond the permit’s validity.
The Ombudsman stressed that Archival, as the city’s local chief executive, was responsible for ensuring compliance with applicable laws and ordinances.
While a local chief executive may rely on subordinates, the ruling said he remains ultimately accountable for ensuring compliance with statutory obligations.
However, the Ombudsman dismissed the charges of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty, citing insufficient evidence of unlawful conduct, recklessness or a willful and flagrant refusal to perform official responsibilities.
It ruled that the circumstances established negligence but did not warrant liability for the more serious administrative offenses.
Aside from the fine equivalent to one month’s basic salary, Archival was sternly warned that a repetition of the same omission would be dealt with more severely.