Cebu City Mayor Nestor Dionson Archival Sr has been ordered to pay a fine equal to one month’s basic salary after an administrative finding of simple neglect of duty over the 2025 Colon Street Night Market. The public release of the Ombudsman decision on 28 October concerns lapses in oversight of the earlier market operation. It does not announce a new night market or determine a current programme of street closures.
The outcome is administrative rather than criminal. A finding of simple neglect concerns the standard of care expected in the performance of official duties. The sanction is expressed as a month of the mayor’s basic salary, so the published outcome does not attach a separate cash figure to the fine.
Requirements for a national road
The 21-page ruling found that the city had not established that the necessary approval or coordination had been secured from the Department of Public Works and Highways before the market operated on Colon Street. The road falls under national jurisdiction, making that coordination an operational requirement identified in the decision.
The ruling also examined permits and road-closure arrangements. It recorded that a permit issued on 1 September covered activity that began on 30 August, while another permit issued on 20 October covered operations that started on 16 October. It further considered a local rule limiting temporary road closures to two days and requiring requests to be made at least two months ahead. Those findings formed part of the basis for the limited administrative liability.
As the city’s local chief executive, Archival was held responsible for ensuring that legal and operational requirements were met. The decision accepted that officials can rely on staff for day-to-day work, but concluded that reliance on subordinates did not remove the mayor’s responsibility to oversee compliance.
What the ruling did not establish
The Ombudsman did not uphold the more serious allegations of grave misconduct or gross neglect of duty. It found insufficient evidence of unlawful conduct, recklessness, or a wilful and flagrant refusal to perform official responsibilities. That distinction is important: the finding was limited to simple neglect of duty, not a conclusion that every allegation made in the complaint had been proved.
The decision also took account of circumstances around the market’s approval. There had been a City Council resolution concerning road closures, favourable recommendations from local offices and a legal opinion supporting the project’s legality. Those circumstances did not remove the failures over coordination, permits and closures, but they were relevant to the decision not to sustain the more serious administrative charges.
Separate complaints against the city treasurer and a former city administrator were dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. The ruling also concluded that the special permit did not require public bidding and that a city body responsible for certain informal trading matters did not have jurisdiction over this market. These conclusions narrowed the case to the mayor’s oversight of the identified operational requirements.
Warning attached to the fine
Alongside the fine, the Ombudsman issued a stern warning that a repeat of the same omission would be dealt with more severely. The decision itself was dated 25 August and its details were released publicly on 28 October. The later disclosure is the current development, while the underlying market operations took place in 2025.
For residents, vendors and city officials, the practical significance lies in the distinction between permission for an event and compliance with every condition governing it. The decision does not turn the 2025 market into a finding of criminal wrongdoing. It instead places an administrative consequence on the mayor for the failures that the ruling identified and leaves a clear warning about future compliance.
