Now, on the procedural aspect of termination of employment. As repeatedly stressed, due process is one which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after hearing. Even if the employee committed an act which could constitute a lawful cause or justification for his dismissal, nevertheless, the employer should first give him the opportunity to explain or present his side. Where the employee denies the charge against him, a hearing is necessary to thresh out any doubt.x[10] Due process in dismissal cases entails compliance with the twin requirements of notice and hearing. Thus, the employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the termination of employment can be effected. The first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; the second informs him of the employers decision to dismiss him.xi[11] In the case at bar, private respondent was repatriated to the Philippines on August 6, 1985, yet his repatriation letter (termination notice) dated August 25, 1985, was handed to him only in September, 1985, while he was already in the country. We note also that petitioner enumerates several causes to support its claim that private respondent did not meet the standards of his job. These include gross misconduct, dishonesty, misrepresentation and falsification. But petitioner did not conduct an investigation thereon, much less, afford private respondent a chance to explain and defend himself. Clearly, petitioner was remiss in observing the fundamental requirements of due process in regard to the termination of private respondent. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED, and the assailed RESOLUTION of public respondent is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. i[1] Rollo, p. 94. ii[2] Under Section 10, R.A. 8042, approved on June 7, 1995, the Labor Arbiters have now original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide claims arising out of an employeremployee relationship, or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for damages. iii[3] Rollo, p. 59. iv[4] Rollo, p. 27. v[5] Rollo, pp. 8 and 14.