This is a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Jose S. Tiaoqui and  Salvador  E. Imperial against the  Honorable Antonio Horrilleno, Judge of First Instance of Manila, Jose Casimiro,  sheriff of the  City of Manila, and China Insurance & Surety  Co., Inc.,  a corporation duly  organized and registered under the laws  of the Philippines.

It appears that in civil  case  No. 45807 of the Court of First  Instance of  Manila,  entitled,  "China Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. vs. Adelina Lim  Tuaco and Agustin Vergel de Dios," there was issued, at the instance of the plaintiff, a writ of execution  against the defendants  by virtue  of which Jose Casimiro, sheriff of the  City  of  Manila, levied upon the amount of P8,390.21 due the defendants from one Ong  Che as  purchase price of  certain  properties,  said amount remaining in the custody of the sheriff; that Jose S. Tiaoqui filed a complaint in which Salvador E. Imperial later intervened (civil case No. 46389 of the Court of First Instance of Manila),  wherein both the plaintiff and the intervenor alleged that they had a lien over the 8,390.21 levied upon by the sheriff of Manila, the first up  to the amount of P2,567.33  and the second up to the amount of P6,000, and both asked that judgment be rendered in their favor and against the China Insurance & Surety Co.,  Inc., for the payment of said  sums,  respectively, with interest and costs; that upon petition of the plaintiff and the intervenor in  said civil case  No. 46389, writs  of injunction were issued  by the court restraining  the sheriff  of the City of Manila from  delivering to the China Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., the aforesaid sum of P8,390.21 in his possession until further order; that a judgment was rendered in the said civil  case  No. 46389 in favor of the plaintiff Tiaoqui and  the  intervenor  Imperial  in  accordance  with their respective claims, and an  appeal  having been taken therefrom, the court required the defendant, China  Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., to put up a bond in the amount of P9,390.21 in order to suspend the execution of the said judgment pending appeal;  that the appeal  bond  referred  to having been  filed, the respondent judge,  upon petition  of the China  Insurance  & Surety  Co., Inc., and  against the objection  of  Jose  S.  Tiaoqui and Salvador E. Imperial, ordered, after the corresponding trial, the lifting of the in- junctions issued as aforesaid, for the reasons, among others, set. forth in the following  order of the respondent judge of November 5,  1935:

"The question, therefore, presented to the court is whether in this state of the  case,  the injunction issued by the court against the defendants  may or may not be  lifted. For a better understanding and resolution of this question, it should be recalled that  the injunction issued herein had for its purpose to prohibit the sheriff of Manila from delivering to the defendant China Insurance Co., in execution of a judgment in favor of the latter and against Adelina Limtuaco, one  of the defendants, the amount of money above-mentioned  which  said  officer  had  and  still  has  in  his possession, which  amount of money had  been  levied upon from Adelina Limtuaco by the sheriff under the aforesaid judgment in a case" wherein the defendant China Insurance Co. was the plaintiff and Adelina Limtuaco and her husband were the defendants.  We  have said that the defendant China Insurance, to prevent the execution of the judgment rendered in this case against it, filed a bond in favor of the plaintiff and the intervenor in the amount of P9,390.21 to guarantee  and  secure the  rights of the  plaintiff and  the intervenor  in the event the said judgment is affirmed by our Honorable  Supreme Court. With the filing of this bond the money  in the hands of the sheriff, which is the subject matter of this case, may now disappear  without affecting the  rights of the plaintiff and the  intervenor who  are secured by the bond filed by the defendant China Insurance Co.  The continuation, therefore, of the injunction the dissolution of which is asked,  is of no avail,  answers no purpose, and does not protect better the rights of the plaintiff and of the intervenor.  This being so, and considering further that the right to the issuance  of a preliminary injunction is not a right ex debito justitise' but an equitable remedy whose issuance, continuation, or dissolution rests on the sound discretion of the courts, which, at any stage of the  case  and  while  they retain  jurisdiction, are  authorized to issue  or dissolve the injunction,  we  find no principle of equity or of justice which, under  the  circumstances in  which  the dissolution of the injunction issued herein is asked, is at  war  with the order dissolving  the same."

Jose S. Tiaoqui  and Salvador E. Imperial have filed  the instant  petition  asking that we declare the order of November 5, 1935,  null and void, alleging that the respondent judge exceeded his powers to the prejudice of the petitioners in issuing the said order lifting the  injunctions without requiring the China Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., to file a bond as provided in section 169 of the Code of Civil Procedure.   The respondents have answered the petition denying that  the  respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his powers, and asking that the petition be denied.

The provisions of section 169 of the Code of Civil  Procedure, relied upon by the petitioners, refer solely to  a case where the petition to lift a preliminary injunction is filed at any time before trial,  and have,  therefore,  no application to the present case where the petition for that purpose was filed after the judgment had been entered  and a bond filed to suspend the execution  thereof pending appeal.  On the other hand,  it is the inherent power of all courts "to amend and control its process and orders  so as to  make them conformable  to law and  justice."  (Section 11,  paragraph 7,  Act No. 190.)

One  of the essential requisites provided by law for the issuance  of a preliminary injunction is "that the commission or continuance of some act complained of during the litigation  would probably work injustice to the plaintiff" (section 164, paragraph 2, Code of Civil Procedure), from which it is inferable that with the disappearance of this cause follows that  of the reason or justification for the injunction, which should therefore not be continued in force. The filing by the  China Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., of the appeal bond to secure the  payment to the plaintiff and the intervenor in civil case No. 46389 of the amounts adjudicated to the latter in the judgment rendered in their favor in the event  the same is affirmed on appeal, dispelled the fear of Injury to the interest of said plaintiff and intervenor sought to be  safeguarded by the issuance of the aforementioned injunction.  The respondent judge not only did not exceed his powers and jurisdiction, but complied with the principles of law  and equity in issuing the order of November 5,   1935.

Wherefore, it is ordered, as we do hereby, that the petition be denied, with costs to the petitioners.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Diaz, and Laurel, JJ., concur.