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. Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the defendant must answer. II.C Jurisprudence has long settled that, with respect to residents temporarily out of the Philippines, the availability of extraterritorial services does not preclude substituted service. Resort to substituted service has long been held to be fair, reasonable and just. This Court has noted that a contrary, restrictive view is that which defeats the ends of justice. It has been emphasized that residents who temporarily leave their residence are responsible for ensuring that their affairs are in order, and that, upon their return, they shall attend to exigencies that may have arisen. In Montalban v. Maximo:[76] This brings us to the question of procedural due process. Substituted service . . . upon a temporarily absent resident, it has been held, is wholly adequate to meet the requirements of due process. The constitutional requirement of due process exacts that the service be such as may be reasonably expected to give the notice desired. Once the service provided by the rules reasonably accomplishes that end, the requirement of justice is answered; the traditional notions of fair play are satisfied; due process is served. .... Chief Justice Moran shares this view. Commenting on Section 18, Rule 14, he states: "Since the defendant is residing in the Philippines, jurisdiction over his person may be acquired by Philippine courts by substituted service of summons under section 8. But extraterritorial service is allowed also by leave of court according to the above provision [Section 18]." Justice Martin regards the word "residence" in Section 8 as "the place where the person named in the summons is living at the time when the service is made, even though he may be temporarily out of the state at the time." This construction is but fair. It is in accord with substantial justice. The burden on a plaintiff is not to be enlarged with a restrictive construction as desired by defendant here. Under the rules, a plaintiff, in the initial stage of suit, is merely required to know the defendant's "dwelling house or residence" or his "office or regular place of business" — and no more. He is not asked to investigate where a resident defendant actually is, at the precise moment of filing suit. Once defendant's dwelling house or residence or office or regular place of business is known, he can expect valid service of summons to be made on "some person of suitable age and discretion then residing" in defendant's dwelling house or residence, or on "some competent person in charge" of his office or regular place of business. By the terms of the law, plaintiff is not even duty-bound to see to it that the person upon whom service was actually made delivers the summons to defendant or informs him about it. The law presumes that for him. It is immaterial then that defendant does not in fact receive actual notice. This will not affect the validity of the service. Accordingly, the defendant may be charged by a judgment in personam as a result of legal proceedings upon a method of service which is not personal, "which in fact may not become actual notice to him," and which may be accomplished in his lawful absence from the country. For, the rules do not require that papers be served on defendant personally or a showing that the papers were delivered to defendant by the person with whom they were left. Reasons for the views just expressed are not wanting. A man temporarily absent from this country leaves a definite place of residence, a dwelling where he lives, a local base, so to speak, to which any inquiry about him may be directed and where he is bound to return. Where one temporarily absents himself, he leaves his affairs in the hands of one who may be reasonably expected to act in his place and stead; to do all that is necessary to protect his interests; and to communicate with him from time to time any incident of importance that may affect him or his business or his affairs. It is usual for such a man to leave at his home or with his business associates information as to where he may be contacted in the event a question that affects him crops up. If he does not do what is expected of him, and a case comes up in court against him, he cannot in justice raise his voice and say that he is not subject to the processes of our courts. He cannot stop a suit from, being filed against him upon a claim that he cannot be summoned at his dwelling house or residence or his office or regular place of business.