Short answer. No, you are not excused. An obligation to deliver a determinate thing is extinguished by accidental loss only if the thing is lost without your fault and before you have incurred in delay. Because you were already in delay when the accident struck, the loss does not free you, and you remain liable in damages.
What the law says
An obligation which consists in the delivery of a determinate thing shall be extinguished if it should be lost or destroyed without the fault of the debtor, and before he has incurred in delay.
Civil Code, Article 1262 — Loss of a Determinate Thing. Read the full provision →
When accidental loss excuses the debtor
Article 1262 sets the general rule for a specific, determinate thing you owe: the obligation shall be extinguished if it should be lost or destroyed without the fault of the debtor, and before he has incurred in delay. Read those conditions closely — extinction requires both that the loss was not your fault and that it happened before you fell into delay. A fortuitous event, standing alone, is not a complete answer. It excuses you only when you were still on time and blameless when the thing perished.
Delay defeats the excuse
Your situation fails the second condition. Once you have incurred in delay, you no longer enjoy the protection of accidental loss. The law treats a debtor who is already late as having taken on the risk of what happens next, even a genuinely accidental destruction he did not cause. So the same fortuitous event that would have released a punctual debtor leaves a delayed one bound. Being late converts the thing's loss from an excuse into your responsibility, and the obligation is not extinguished by it.
What you owe instead
Because the obligation survives, you answer for it. A debtor in delay whose determinate thing is then lost is liable to the creditor for damages in place of the thing itself — the value of what should have been delivered, together with the loss caused by the delay. The creditor is put, as nearly as money can, in the position performance would have given him. Delay is therefore costly precisely at the moment of an accident: it strips away the defense that would otherwise have ended the debt cleanly.
The narrow way out
The article leaves one recognized escape, applied strictly. A debtor already in delay can still avoid liability only by proving the thing would have been lost anyway, in the creditor's own hands, even if it had been delivered on time. Absent that, delay seals your liability. Note too that the article separately provides that where the debtor is liable for fortuitous events by law or stipulation, or the obligation requires assuming the risk, loss never extinguishes the duty and damages are owed regardless of delay.
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 →