6/8/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly violation of private respondent’s right to due process, not to mention the oppressive and anti-social manner by which private respondent was terminated, the Labor Arbiter also awarded moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees. Expectedly, petitioners appealed the Labor Arbiter’s decision to the NLRC. The NLRC, however, agreed with the Labor Arbiter that “the [petitioner] failed to substantiate [the] charges. Moreover, the record shows that complainant was dismissed without due process. She was not afforded due notice and the chance to be heard.”[5] Yet, the NLRC deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees for lack of legal basis. It found no sufficient proof that the questioned dismissal was accompanied by fraud or bad faith. Both petitioners and private respondent filed tardy motions for reconsideration of the NLRC decision. Petitioners squarely admit this fact in their petition, and private respondent, in her Comment. The late filing by petitioners of their motion for reconsideration is fatal to the present petition. In the absence of a motion for reconsideration timely filed within the ten-day reglementary period, the assailed order, resolution or decision of the NLRC, becomes final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof.[6] Private respondent implores this court to restore the award of moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees deleted by the NLRC in its decision; this, notwithstanding categorical admission that private respondent’s own motion for reconsideration thereof was likewise filed out of time. To the same extent that the NLRC decision must now be deemed final and executory as regards petitioners, the same decision cannot be otherwise as regards private respondent, hence, we cannot oblige private respondent. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is HEREBY DISMISSED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. Padilla,(Chairman) Bellosillo, Vitug, and Kapunan, JJ., concur. [1] Comment of the Private Respondent, Rollo, pp. 64-74. [2] Comment of the Solicitor General, Rollo, pp. 86-95. [3] Docketed as Case No. NLRC-NCR-00-11-07150-93. [4] Decision of Labor Arbiter Ernesto S. Dinopol dated April 26, 1992, Rollo, pp. 14-22. [5] Resolution of the NLRC (Third Division), penned by Commissioner Joaquin A. Tanodra and concurred in by Commissioners Lourdes C. Javier and Ireneo B. Bernardo, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/34440 2/3