12 difference is palpable that it would not require further disquisition. 2.13. Interestingly, even the rules relied by some of the respondents, i.e. Section 14, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, allow the extraterritorial service of summons “in any other manner the court may deem sufficient.” “Section 15. Extraterritorial service. — When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under section 6; or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient….”27 2.14. Here, the Honorable Commission deemed sufficient the service of Petition and Order, which required respondents to respond within forty-five (45) days to the Petition, through courier. What is important is that the parties were served with the Petition and Order, fully apprising them of this case and giving them the opportunity to be heard, as respondents did when they filed their respective responses to the Petition. 2.15. Given the foregoing discussion, the argument as to service through respondents’ registered agent in the Philippines must, likewise, necessarily fail. B.2. For investigation purposes, respondents are impleaded in the Petition as corporate groups and as they are publicly known. 2.16. In the letter dated 02 September 2016 sent by respondent Chevron Corporation (hereinafter, “Chevron”), through its managing counsel, for the stated purpose of returning the copies of the Petition and the Honorable Commission’s Order, respondent Chevron avoided providing a meaningful response by claiming that “the package does not indicate a 27 Section 14, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.