Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that

degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, by reason of which
such other person suffers injury. The test to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case
may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in the performance of the alleged negligent act use
reasonable care and caution which an ordinary person would have used in the same situation? If not,
then he is guilty of negligence. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by
reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers what
would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and
determines liability by that norm.

Dy Teban Trading, Inc. v. Ching, G.R. No. 161803, February 4, 2008

Negligence can either be simple or gross. Negligence can be considered gross when it "refers to
negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by 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 the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that
care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property."22 It denotes a
flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty.23 In cases involving public
officials, gross negligence occurs when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.24

Fernandez v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 193983 dated March 14, 2012

The same can also be said against the contractor. The non performance of his contractual obligations
directly contributed to the non implementation of the subject infrastructure and its consequent
disallowance. Appellee is correct in pointing out the contractual obligations of the Appellant contractor
appearing in xxx.

A contract, once perfected, has the force of law between the parties with which they are bound to
comply in good faith and from which neither one may renege without the consent of the other.

in the light of established facts, as found by the Sandiganbayan and upheld by this Court, clearly showing
that he acted with manifest partiality and gross inexcusable negligence in awarding the BOT project to
an unlicensed and financially unqualified contractor.

16.1.3 Public officers who approve or authorize expenditures shall be liable for losses arising out of their
negligence or failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family.
ection 17.6 explicitly states that n o bidding and award of contract for infrastructure projects shall be
made unless the detailed engineering investigations, surveys and designs, including the acquisition of
the right-of-way (ROW), for the project have been sufficiently carried out and duly approved in
accordance with the standards and specifications prescribed by the head of the procuring entity
concerned or his duly authorized representative, and in accordance with the provisions of Annex “A” of
the IRR.