Short answer. No. Ordinarily an accidental loss with no fault on your part ends the duty to deliver a specific thing, but a clause making you liable even for fortuitous events reverses that. Under Article 1262 the loss no longer extinguishes the obligation, and you become answerable in damages instead.
What the law says
When by law or stipulation, the obligor is liable even for fortuitous events, the loss of the thing does not extinguish the obligation, and he shall be responsible for damages. The same rule applies when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk.
Civil Code, Article 1262 — Loss of a Determinate Thing. Read the full provision →
The default rule, and its exception
The general position is forgiving. An obligation to deliver a determinate thing — a specific car, a particular parcel — is extinguished if the thing is lost or destroyed without the fault of the debtor, and before he has incurred in delay. A genuine accident normally lets the debtor off, because he cannot deliver what no longer exists and he did nothing to cause its loss. Your clause switches this off. The article continues: When by law or stipulation, the obligor is liable even for fortuitous events, the loss of the thing does not extinguish the obligation, and he shall be responsible for damages. Having agreed to carry that risk, you carry it.
What 'liable even for fortuitous events' does
A fortuitous event is precisely the kind of accident — fire, flood, theft without negligence — that would ordinarily excuse performance. By stipulating that you answer even for those, you have contracted away the excuse in advance. The thing is gone, so you plainly cannot hand it over; the obligation to deliver instead converts into an obligation to pay damages measured by the value of what you promised. In practical terms the accident does not close the matter for you — it changes the currency in which you must perform, from the thing itself to money.
When risk-bearing is implied
The clause is not the only route to this result. The article adds that the same rule applies when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk. Some undertakings carry the risk by their very character, even without an express line about fortuitous events, because taking on the danger is the whole point of the deal. So a debtor cannot always escape by noting that his contract never used the word accident; if the arrangement is one whose essence is to shoulder the risk, the law reads that assumption in and the same consequence follows.
The limits of your exposure
This does not make you an insurer of every conceivable event beyond the bargain you actually struck; the liability flows from a stipulation, a law, or the nature of the obligation, not from nothing. The rule also assumes a determinate thing — a unique, identified object — because a generic obligation to deliver, say, a quantity of ordinary goods is generally not excused by loss at all, since such things are treated as never perishing. And even here the measure is damages for the value promised; it is not a licence for the creditor to demand more than the obligation was worth.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- CJH Development Corporation vs. Corazon D. Aniceto/Corazon D. Aniceto vs. CJH Development Corporation, et, G.R. No. 224006 / G.R. No. 224472, July 6, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Ricardo and Elena C. Golez vs Meliton Nemeño, G.R. No. 178317, September 23, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Asian Construction and Development Corporation vs. Philippine Commercial International Bank, G.R. No. 153827, April 25, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Jimmy Co, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 124922, June 22, 1998 — read the decision on LawPhil →