In this case, the defendant cannot raise the defence of a fortuitous event.

To constitute a
fortuitous event, the following must occur;
A. The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence of the failure must be
independent of human will.
B. The event must be either unforeseeable and unavoidable.
C. The event must be such to render it impossible to fulfil his obligation in a normal
manner
D. And that the debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggragation of the injury
to the creditor; (huibonhoa v. CA, G.R. Nos 95897 and 102604, 14 December 1999,
320 SCRA 625, 651-652).

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that in order for a party to claim exemption from
liability by reason of fortuitous event under Art. 1174 of the Civil Code, the event should be
the sole and proximate cause of the loss or destruction of the object of the contract.

In this case, traffic to certain areas and roads is not unforeseen and unexpected
because city ordinances are implemented preventing heavy trucks from entering roads with
heavy traffic volume to prevent congestion in certain times of the day giving heavy trucks
and delivery trucks a window time when they can transport their load without the traffic.

Traffic is neither inevitable nor a surprise in city roads given the high volume of
population in the area and it is not impossible to avoid the traffic if the window time for the
deliveries to pass certain roads to avoid the traffic be considered in the transport.

The reason why people opt to avail the courier service is to lessen the stress and to
take advantage of the convenience this services has to offer and that includes the events
like traffic and long period of transport. Including traffic as a fortuitous event would defend
the essence of the services being provided by the couriers for their delivery packages to
their customers.