Records disclose that Anita was repatriated to the Philippines on 25 January 1995.  On the night before her departure, her employer’s wife merely told her that she was sending her home “on account of some problem.”  When Anita asked Ms. Go, who accompanied her to the airport the following day, why she was being repatriated, Ms. Go merely answered that “there was some kind of a problem.”[28]              The information given to Anita cannot be considered as equivalent to the written notice required by law to be served on the employee.  The notice should inform the employee of the ground or grounds for his termination and that his dismissal is being sought.           The absence of notice in the present case makes Anita’s termination defective for which petitioner must be sanctioned for its non-compliance with the requirements of or for failure to observe due process.  Not being a mere technicality but part of procedural due process, to which every employee is entitled to ensure that the employer’s prerogative to dismiss is not exercised arbitrarily, this requisite notice must be complied with strictly.[29]              Hence, it was incumbent upon Anita’s foreign employer to comply with this requirement.  This, her employer failed to do, entitling Anita to nominal damages[30] of P30,000 in accordance with recent jurisprudence,[31] to vindicate or recognize her right to procedural due process which was violated by her employer.             In Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[32] this Court held:               Where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in the instant case, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual.  However, the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory rights, as ruled inReta v. National Labor Relations Commission.  The indemnity to be imposed should be stiffer to discourage the abhorrent practice of “dismiss now, pay later,” which we sought to deter in the Serrano ruling.  The sanction should be in the nature of indemnification or penalty and should depend on the facts of each case, taking into special consideration the gravity of the due process violation of the employer.               Under the Civil Code, nominal damages is adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be