109 to 112 of Rollo). As such, the same could not have carried much weight. There is no question therefore that complainant was dismissed without any justifiable cause. Due process, the second element for a valid dismissal, requires notice and hearing.xxxiii[33] Before the employee can be dismissed under Article 282, the Code requires the service of a written notice containing a statement of the cause(s) of termination and giving said employee ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. A notice of termination in writing is further required if the employees dismissal is decided upon.xxxiv[34] The employer must furnish the worker with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected: (1) notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought and (2) subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employers decision to dismiss him. The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process, and neither of these elements can be eliminated without running afoul of the constitutional guaranty.xxxv[35] Using these legal criteria, we hold that private respondent was illegally dismissed. No notice was ever given to him prior to his dismissal. This fact alone disproves petitioners allegation that private respondent was given fair warning and enough opportunity to explain his side [regarding] the incidents that led to his dismissal. These requisites cannot be replaced as they are not mere technicalities, but requirements of due process to which every employee is entitled to ensure that the employers prerogative to dismiss is not exercised arbitrarily.xxxvi[36] Illegally dismissed workers are entitled to the payment of their salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of their employment where the employment is for a definite period.xxxvii[37] Conformably, the administrator and the Respondent Commission properly awarded private respondent salaries for the period beginning April 9, 1987, the date of his illegal dismissal, until February 18, 1988, the expiration of his contract. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The challenged Decision and Resolution are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Romero, Melo, and Francisco, JJ., concur. i[1] Rollo, pp. 36-39. ii[2] Ibid.,pp. 40-44.