JAIME F. MOLINA PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND JOEL MENESES OWNER OF JCM ENTERPRISES, RESPONDENTS.

In a Resolution^[1] dated March 13, 2014, this Court dismissed the above-entitled case for failure of petitioner to file the intended petition. However, earlier on March 3, 2014, petitioner filed a Manifestation^[2], which this Court received only on March 14, 2014, requesting that he be allowed to pay in full the docket and other legal fees and to file his petition for certiorari within a period of ninety (90) days from March 2, 2014 or until May 31, 2014.

Pending resolution of the March 3, 2014 Manifestation, counsel for petitioner filed on April 11, 2014, an Omnibus Motion^[3] and a Petition for Certiorari^[4], which this Court received on April 24, 2014 and April 28, 2014, respectively.

Meanwhile, considering the March 3, 2014 Manifestation, this Court issued a Resolution^[5] dated April 25, 2014, resolving to reconsider and set aside its March 13, 2014 Resolution which dismissed the above-entitled case, and granted petitioner until May 31, 2014 within which to file the intended petition for certiorari, with a warning that no further extension will be entertained.

On June 2, 2014, another Petition for Certiorari^[6] was filed by the same counsel for petitioner in the April 11, 2014 Petition. A close examination of both the April 11, 2014 and June 2, 2014 petitions reveals, that the two petitions are quite distinct in content and form, although referring to the same subject matter. Thus, this Court issued a Minute Resolution^[7] dated August 5, 2014, directing counsel for petitioner to distinguish which of the two petitions filed by him is the one actually intended to be considered by this Court with a warning, that failure to comply with the directive will cause the dismissal of both petitions.

In its Report^[8] dated October 23, 2014, the Judicial Records Division stated that counsel for petitioner has not yet complied with the August 5, 2014 Resolution. Thus, on November 20, 2014, this Court issued another Minute Resolution^[9], requiring counsel for petitioner to comply with the August 5, 2014 Resolution, with a warning that failure to comply with the said Resolution will cause the dismissal of both petitions.

As per Report^[10] dated February 27, 2015 of the Judicial Records Division, counsel for petitioner still failed, without justification, to comply with the August 5, 2014 Resolution despite receipt of the November 20, 2014 Resolution by Atty. Cesar Cariño on December 10, 2014, as evidenced by the Registry Return Receipt.^[11]

WHEREFORE, the petition in the above-entitled case is deemed ABANDONED and accordingly, DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Baltazar-Padilla, P.J., and Inting, S.B., JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 11

^[2] Id. at 13-15.

^[3] Id. at 30-33.

^[4] Id. at 34-41.

^[5] Id. at 25-26.

^[6] Id. at 84-95.

^[7] Id. at. 139.

^[8] Id. (dorsal portion).

^[9] Id. at 140.

^[10] Id. (dorsal portion).

^[11] Id.