The second requisite that must be complied with by an employer for a valid dismissal is to afford the erring employee due process.  The due process requirement is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with at will.  Its disregard is a matter of serious concern since it constitutes a safeguard of the highest order in response to man’s innate sense of justice.[39]  The Labor Code does not, of course, require a formal or trial type proceeding before an erring employee may be dismissed.  This is especially true in the case of a vessel on the ocean or in a foreign port.  The minimum requirement of due process in termination proceedings, which must be complied with even with respect to seamen on board a vessel, consists of notice to the employees intended to be dismissed and the grant to them of an opportunity to present their own side of the alleged offense or misconduct, which led to the management’s decision to terminate.[40]  To meet the requirements of due process, the employer must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected, i.e., (1) a notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent notice after due hearing which informs the employee of the employers decision to dismiss him. [41]               Now, in the case at bar, this Court is convinced that the petitioners also failed to comply with the second requisite in effecting a valid dismissal, which is to afford the respondents due process.  As previously discussed herein, to meet the requirements of due process, it is indispensable upon the employer to furnish the employee sought to be dismissed with two written notices.  The warning notices[42] given by the petitioners to the respondents cannot be deemed as substantial compliance with the two-notice requirement as mandated by the Labor Code in effecting a valid dismissal.  Those warning notices did not specify in detail the particular acts or omissions committed by the respondents which showed their incompetence.  Worse still it did not apprise them that their dismissal was sought.  Such notices were stated in a general manner.  It was never mentioned therein that the petitioners would dismiss the respondents.  Although the petitioners claimed that those notices were given to the respondents days before they were repatriated, the same leaves much to be desired.