Manifest partiality exists when the accused has a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to

favor one side or one person rather than another. 29 It is synonymous with bias, which excites a
disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are. 30

Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or to
cause damage. 31 It contemplates a breach of sworn duty through some perverse motive or ill will. 32

Gross inexcusable negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care,
acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. 33

||| (Reyes y Vacio v. People, G.R. Nos. 177105-06, [August 4, 2010], 641 PHIL 91-109)

VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF

RA 3019
Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 provides:
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or
omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or
judicial functions through manifest impartiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. . . . . (emphasis supplied)
To be found guilty under said provision, the following elements must
concur:
(1) the offender is a public officer;
(2) the act was done in the discharge of the public officer's official,
administrative or judicial functions;
(3) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or
gross inexcusable negligence; and
(4) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including
the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference. 17(emphasis supplied)
It is undisputed that the first two elements are present in the case at bar.
The only question left is whether the third and fourth elements are likewise
present. We hold that they are.
 The third element of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 may be committed in three
ways, i.e., through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence. Proof of any of these three in connection with the prohibited acts
mentioned in Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 is enough to convict. 18
Explaining what "partiality," "bad faith" and "gross negligence" mean, we
held: aAcHCT

"Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which "excites a disposition to see

and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are." "Bad
faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a
wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it
partakes of the nature of fraud." "Gross negligence has been so defined
as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or
omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently
but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to
consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the
omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never
fail to take on their own property." 19 (citations omitted)
In the instant case, petitioner was grossly negligent in all the purchases
that were made under his watch. Petitioner's admission that the canvass sheets
sent out by de Jesus to the suppliers already contained his signatures because
he pre-signed these forms 20 only proved his utter disregard of the
consequences of his actions. Petitioner also admitted that he knew the
provisions of RA 7160 on personal canvass but he did not follow the law
because he was merely following the practice of his predecessors. 21 This was
an admission of a mindless disregard for the law in a tradition of illegality. This
is totally unacceptable, considering that as municipal mayor, petitioner ought to
implement the law to the letter. As local chief executive, he should have been
the first to follow the law and see to it that it was followed by his constituency.
Sadly, however, he was the first to break it.
Petitioner should have complied with the requirements laid down by RA
7160 on personal canvass, no matter how strict they may have been. Dura lex
sed lex.The law is difficult but it is the law. These requirements are not empty
words but were specifically crafted to ensure transparency in the acquisition of
government supplies, especially since no public bidding is involved in personal
canvass. Truly, the requirement that the canvass and awarding of supplies be
made by a collegial body assures the general public that despotic, irregular or
unlawful transactions do not occur. It also guarantees that no personal
preference is given to any supplier and that the government is given the best
possible price for its procurements.
The fourth element is likewise present. While it is true that the
prosecution was not able to prove any undue injury to the government as a
 result of the purchases, it should be noted that there are two ways by which
Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 may be violated — the first, by causing undue injury
to any party, including the government, or the second, by giving any private
party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. Although neither
mode constitutes a distinct offense,22 an accused may be charged under either
mode or both. 23 The use of the disjunctive "or" connotes that the two modes
need not be present at the same time. In other words, the presence of one
would suffice for conviction. 24
Aside from the allegation of undue injury to the government, petitioner
was also charged with having given unwarranted benefit, advantage or
preference to private suppliers. 25 Under the second mode, damage is not
required. DISTcH

The word "unwarranted" means lacking adequate or official support;

unjustified; unauthorized 26 or without justification or adequate
reason. 27 "Advantage" means a more favorable or improved position or
condition; benefit, profit or gain of any kind; benefit from some course of
action. 28 "Preference" signifies priority or higher evaluation or desirability;
choice or estimation above another. 29
In order to be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices that the
accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the exercise of his
official, administrative or judicial functions. Petitioner did just that. The fact that
he repeatedly failed to follow the requirements of RA 7160 on personal canvass
proves that unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference was given to the
winning suppliers. These suppliers were awarded the procurement contract
without the benefit of a fair system in determining the best possible price for the
government. The private suppliers, which were all personally chosen by
respondent, were able to profit from the transactions without showing proof that
their prices were the most beneficial to the government. For that, petitioner must
now face the consequences of his acts. cTDaEH

(Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403, [March 9, 2010], 628 PHIL
|||

573-586)