Its reliance on Wenphil is, therefore, misplaced since in that case, there was just cause for the employees dismissal. Article 277 of the Labor Code provides, inter alia: (a) xxx xxx xxx" "(b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause and notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with assistance of his representative if he so desires in accordance with company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment. xxx In particular, Rule XXIII , Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code states: Section 2. Standards of due process: requirements of notice. In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed: I. For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code: xxx (a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side; (b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him; and (c) A written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination. xxx xxx." In sum, to effect a completely valid and unassailable dismissal, the employer must show not only sufficient ground therefore, but must also prove that procedural due process had been observed by giving the employee two notices.viii[8] In this, petitioner was remiss, hence, it should suffer the consequences. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DISMISSED. Accordingly, the decision of the labor arbiter dated June 21, 1996, and the resolution of the NLRC dated