G.R. No. 165399 - Lacson vs. Executive Secretary

Theron V. Lacson, Jaime R. Millan, and Bernardo T. Viray were non-presidential appointees and career-service officials of the Philippine Estates Authority (PEA), occupying senior managerial positions.
They were involved in the contract for the construction of the President Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard (Central Boulevard Project).

On October 3, 2002, Sulficio O. Tagud filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman accusing petitioners of overpricing the Project by ₱600,000,000.00.
The Ombudsman docketed both a criminal case (OMB-C-C-02-0667-J, charging violation of R.A. No. 7080) and an administrative case (OMB-C-A-02-0523-K, charging dishonesty, serious misconduct, acts inimical to public service under the Uniform Rules).

On October 14, 2002, the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) requested authority from the Ombudsman to conduct disciplinary proceedings; the Ombudsman replied that no such authority was necessary and that PAGC could proceed.
On November 12, 2002, PAGC filed a formal administrative complaint against petitioners for violations of P.D. No. 1594 IRR, Sections of R.A. No. 3019, the Revised Penal Code, the Construction Agreement, and E.O. No. 292. PAGC set a 10-day period for counter-affidavits and held a preliminary conference.

On November 28, 2002, PAGC recommended dismissal of the petitioners from PEA, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and disqualification from public service.
On December 16, 2002, the President, through the Executive Secretary, approved PAGC’s recommendation; PEA effected the dismissals on July 25, 2003.

Petitioners filed petitions for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging their dismissal (CA-G.R. SP No. 78290 and 78749). Writs of preliminary injunction were issued.
On June 29, 2004, the CA dismissed the consolidated petitions. Motions for reconsideration were denied on September 20, 2004.
The Supreme Court consolidated the appeals in G.R. Nos. 165399, 165475, 165404, and 165489, which gave rise to the present petitions under Rule 45.

Whether only the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate and dismiss career-service officers like petitioners.
Whether PAGC’s authority under E.O. No. 12, s. 2002, to investigate and recommend dismissal of non-presidential appointees is constitutional.

Whether petitioners should have appealed their dismissal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) instead of directly to the CA.
Whether the CA had jurisdiction to entertain the petitions in the absence of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Whether petitioners were deprived of due process when PEA dismissed them solely on PAGC’s recommendation without conducting its own investigation.
Whether petitioners’ security of tenure under the Constitution and Civil Service Decree was violated.

Whether the institution of multiple administrative complaints against petitioners for the same act constituted prohibited forum shopping.