notice of the date of the hearing on the merits of the issuance of a [permanent protection order]." Clearly then, summons and temporary protection orders are entirely different judicial issuances. It is true that the latter also serves the purpose of conveying information. However, this information pertains not to the filing of an action but merely to the schedule of an upcoming hearing. The similarities of a summons and a protection order begin and end with their informative capacity. At no point does the Anti-VAWC Law intimate that the temporary protection order is the means for acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. Section 15 of the Anti-VAWC Law's reference to "immediate personal service" is an incident of the underlying urgency which compelled the ex parte issuance of a protection order. It should not be construed as a restriction on the manner of acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. Otherwise, far from relieving a manifest urgency, it stifles a civil action for the issuance of a protection order right at the moment of its initiation. Construed as such, a temporary protection order is twisted to a shrewdly convenient procedural tool for defeating the very purposes for which it was issued in the first place. II.B Section 1 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC expressly states that while it governs petitions for the issuance of protection orders under the Anti-VAWC Law, "[t]he Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily." In the silence of A.M. No. 04-10-11SC, service of summons - the means established by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure for informing defendants and/or respondents of the filing of adverse actions, and for the acquisition of jurisdiction over their persons - remains efficacious. Petitioner, though an American citizen, was admittedly a resident of the Philippines as of September 7, 2005, the date when Deputy Sheriff Velasco attempted to personally serve summons on him. [74] On September 7, 2005, however, he was not in the Philippines. It was this circumstance which, according to the Sheriff's Report, [75] impelled substituted service of summons through Tolentino. Rule 14, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure clearly articulates a preference for personal service of summons: Section 6. Service in person on defendant. - Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. Rule 14, Section 6 recognizes two (2) alternative ways through which personal service may be effected: first, by actually handing summons to the defendant, which presupposes the defendant's willingness to accept the summons; and second, by mere tender, if the defendant refuses to accept. If personal service is impracticable within a reasonable time, substituted service may be resorted to in lieu of personal service. Rule 14, Section 7 states: Section 7. Substituted service. - If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. In the case of residents who are temporarily not in the Philippines, another alternative means for serving summons is through extraterritorial service. Rule 14, Section 16 states: Section 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. — When any action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding section. The preceding Section 15 spells out the terms of extraterritorial service: 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