6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly skimpier or more revealing than those of the other women working at the club. Respondent also presented the Affidavit[47] dated August 16, 2004 of Wolfgang Pelzer (Pelzer), a Canadian citizen who was a regular patron of the club. According to Pelzer, respondent was appropriately dressed for the songs she sang, and while respondent was employed as a singer, she was also pressured into dancing onstage and she appeared hesitant and uncomfortable as she danced. As between the allegations of Pelzer, on one hand, and those of Tiatco and Flores, on the other hand, as regards respondent's behavior at the club, the Court accords more weight to the former as Pelzer can be deemed a disinterested witness who had no apparent gain in executing his Affidavit, as opposed to Tiatco and Flores who were still employed by SAENCO when they executed their joint affidavit. Lastly, as the Court of Appeals pertinently observed, if respondent was truly misbehaving as early as September 2003 as petitioners alleged, SAENCO would have terminated her employment at the earliest opportunity to protect its interest. Instead, SAENCO even extended respondent's employment beyond the original six-month period. The Court likewise points out that there is absolutely no showing that SAENCO, at any time during the course of respondent's employment, gave respondent a reminder and/or warning that she was violating club policies. This leads to another finding of the Court in this case, that petitioners also failed to afford respondent procedural due process. Article 277(b) of the Labor Code, as amended, mandates that the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice stating the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself/herself with the assistance of his/her representative, if he/she so desires. Per said provision, the employer is actually required to give the employee two notices: the first is the notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his/her dismissal is being sought along with the opportunity for the employee to air his/her side, while the second is the subsequent notice of the employer's decision to dismiss him/her.[48] Again, the Court stresses that the burden of proving compliance with the requirements of notice and hearing prior to respondent's dismissal from employment falls on petitioners and SAENCO, but there had been no attempt at all by petitioners and/or SAENCO to submit such proof. Neither petitioners nor SAENCO described the circumstances how respondent was informed of the causes for her dismissal from employment and/or the fact of her dismissal. In contrast, respondent was able to recount in detail the events which led to her dismissal from employment and subsequent repatriation to the Philippines, corroborated in part by Pelzer. It appears that on June 13, 2004, petitioner Moldes personally went to see respondent in Ulsan, South Korea to demand that respondent pay the loan and dismiss the counsel respondent hired in the Philippines to contest the same; respondent, however, refused. On June 24, 2004, Park confronted respondent while she was working at the club, forcibly took her away from the club in Ulsan, and brought her to his office in Seoul. Park tried to intimidate respondent into agreeing to elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64155 20/27