5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly adjudicate.”[73] In this case, petitioner merely alleged that respondent failed to comply with her foreign employer’s work requirements and was inefficient in her work.[74] No evidence was shown to support such allegations. Petitioner did not even bother to specify what requirements were not met, what efficiency standards were violated, or what particular acts of respondent constituted inefficiency. There was also no showing that respondent was sufficiently informed of the standards against which her work efficiency and performance were judged. The parties’ conflict as to the position held by respondent showed that even the matter as basic as the job title was not clear. The bare allegations of petitioner are not sufficient to support a claim that there is just cause for termination. There is no proof that respondent was legally terminated. Petitioner failed to comply with the due process requirements Respondent’s dismissal less than one year from hiring and her repatriation on the same day show not only failure on the part of petitioner to comply with the requirement of the existence of just cause for termination. They patently show that the employers did not comply with the due process requirement. A valid dismissal requires both a valid cause and adherence to the valid procedure of dismissal.[75] The employer is required to give the charged employee at least two written notices before termination.[76] One of the written notices must inform the employee of the particular acts that may cause his or her dismissal.[77] The other notice must “[inform] the employee of the employer’s decision.”[78] Aside from the notice requirement, the employee must also be given “an opportunity to be heard.”[79] Petitioner failed to comply with the twin notices and hearing requirements. Respondent started working on June 26, 1997. She was told that she was terminated on July 14, 1997 effective on the same day and barely a month from her first workday. She was also repatriated on the same day that she was informed of her termination. The abruptness of the termination negated any finding that she was properly notified and given the opportunity to be heard. Her constitutional right to due process of law was violated. II Respondent Joy Cabiles, having been illegally dismissed, is entitled to her salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract that was violated together with attorney’s fees and reimbursement of amounts withheld from her salary. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, states that overseas workers who were terminated elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57319 8/39