The Labor Code requires both notice and hearing; notice alone will not suffice.  The requirement of notice is intended to inform the employee concerned of the employer’s intent to dismiss him and the reason for the proposed dismissal.  On the other hand, the requirement of hearing affords the employee an opportunity to answer his employer’s charges against him and accordingly to defend himself therefrom before dismissal is effected.[43]  In this case, after the warning notices were given to the respondents, the petitioners did not give the respondents an opportunity to present their sides by conducting a hearing as provided for in Section 17 of the POEA Contract.[44]  Instead, the petitioners, with breathless speed, ordered the repatriation of the erring employees toManila.  Therefore, the second notice, which must be given after hearing to inform the respondents of the petitioners’ decision to dismiss them, was not complied with.  In view of that, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that there was non-compliance with the two-notice requirement in effecting a valid dismissal.                       Inasmuch as the respondents were illegally dismissed because the ground relied upon by the petitioners were not substantially proven and there was noncompliance with the two-notice requirement in effecting a valid dismissal, they are entitled to the payment of indemnity.  However, this Court does not agree with the findings of the Court of Appeals that the provisions of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers’ Act of 1995, is the law applicable in computing the amount of indemnity to be paid to the respondents who have been illegally dismissed.  The said Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 partly provides:               In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the         full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.               This Court held in the case of Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, [45] thus:           A plain reading of Sec. 10 clearly reveals that the choice of which amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker, i.e., whether his salaries